Skip to content
Briffa SolicitorsBriffa Solicitors
Briffa Solicitors
Intellectual Property Law
+44 (0)20 7288 6003info@briffa.com
  • What We Do
    • Practice Areas
      • Commercial and Corporate Law
      • Confidential Information
      • Copyright
      • Database Rights
      • Data Protection
      • Design Rights
      • Image Rights
      • IP Disputes
      • IP Contracts and Licences
      • Patents and Inventions
      • Trade Marks
    • Case Studies
    • Industry Specialisms
      • Baby and Child – Briffa Solicitors
      • Fashion Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Food and Drink Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Graphic Design and Branding Agencies
      • Health and Wellbeing – Briffa Solicitors
      • Music
      • Product Design
      • Technology
  • International
    • EU
    • Further afield
  • Team
  • Reviews
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Videos
  • Book a Meeting
Search site
FacebookLinkedinTwitter
  • What We Do
    • Practice Areas
      • Commercial and Corporate Law
      • Confidential Information
      • Copyright
      • Database Rights
      • Data Protection
      • Design Rights
      • Image Rights
      • IP Disputes
      • IP Contracts and Licences
      • Patents and Inventions
      • Trade Marks
    • Case Studies
    • Industry Specialisms
      • Baby and Child – Briffa Solicitors
      • Fashion Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Food and Drink Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Graphic Design and Branding Agencies
      • Health and Wellbeing – Briffa Solicitors
      • Music
      • Product Design
      • Technology
  • International
    • EU
    • Further afield
  • Team
  • Reviews
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Videos
  • Book a Meeting
smartwatch

We all know technology is constantly changing and evolving at a rapid speed. Currently, the latest craze is smartwatches (not sure for how long though!).

There are a number of ways we can protect Intellectual Property rights in technological products/ advancements. The most obvious being a patent. However, a topical case here is based on Registered Community Design rights for smartwatches. A registered design will give protection to the exterior appearance of a product. Such rights are clearly beneficial for products where its appearance is the selling point. In some cases, if the appearance shows a part of the technical function of the product, such as sensor, then registered design rights can protect this. Although, this form of protection for technical functions are limited.

PulseOn OY v Garmin (Europe) Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 138

PulseOn and Garmin are two high-tech corporations who have created numerous things over the years. In this case they have both designed and produced smartwatches. PulseOn hold two Registered Community Designs protecting the arrangement of LED’s/sensors for a heart rate monitor on their smartwatches. PulseOn claim that Garmin’s smartwatch infringes their registered designs by having an identical/similar arrangement of LED’s/sensors.

The High Court held that although PulseOn’s registered designs are valid, Garmin did not infringe the design registrations. The High Court judge concluded that these technical features are limited to protection of registered designs irrespective of shape or form. Therefore, ultimately concluded Garmin’s design of their smartwatch, due to the technical nature (which has limited design protection), did not infringe PulseOn’s design.

PulseOn appealed to the Court of Appeal (CA), appealing on 4 grounds. In relation to the first ground, the judge erred on the conclusion that design freedom was constrained. Secondly, the judge made an error in comparing the 3D model of Garmin’s product rather than Garmin’s actual product. Another ground made was that the judge attached too much weight to the technical features. The final ground of the appeal was that the judge explored Garmin’s product by identical impression, rather than whether it produced a different overall impression on an informed user.

The CA upheld the High Court judge’s decisions on all grounds; rejecting PulseOn’s appeal

Briffa’s Comments

Judgment from the High Court emphasises the point where registered designs that relate to highly functional or technical products are limited in terms of design freedom. This means technical features which are incorporated in designs will only provide small design differences when considering the overall impression on the informed user.

An informed user is taken to be aware of these design freedom constraints, thus less consideration is taken on the overall impression created by the design.

The case affirms that a greater degree of similarity is normally required to infringe the design of a highly functional or technical product, compared to a highly decorative/aesthetic product.

That being said, it’s a hard result for PulseOn to take and whether they appeal further is something we will be keeping our eye on.

Written by Hasnath Ahmed, Solicitor

 

Share this post

Post navigation

PreviousPrevious post:Copyright conundrumsNextNext post:The latest music copyright battle: ‘Seven Nation Army’ vs ‘Toy’

Related posts

Nike
Nike’s proactive approach to IP brings claims against OneMix
9th May 2019
banana
A fruity copyright tale
10th April 2019
Jeans
Another fight to protect Levi’s iconic Trade Mark
23rd November 2018
Colourful unicorn
A Farting Unicorn’s Musky Attraction!
29th June 2018
The Hague System, soon available for UK Registered Designs
23rd March 2018
Children wearing crocs
Crocs shoe design has massive legal hole – how not to go about protecting your design!
22nd March 2018
Main service pages
  • Baby and Child
  • Beyond the EU
  • Briffa’s Complaints Handling Procedure
  • Case Studies
  • Case Study – Creative thinking on trade mark matters
  • Case Study – Design Infringement
  • Case Study – Employee Breach of Restrictive Covenants
  • Case Study – Games Development – Publishing Deal
  • Data Protection
  • Fashion Industry
  • Food and Drink Industry
  • Graphic Design and Branding Agencies
  • Health and Wellbeing
  • Music
  • Privacy Policy
  • Product Design
  • Reviews
  • Technology
  • Video
  • Brand Clearance and Protection
  • Commercial and Corporate Law
  • Confidential Information
  • Copyright
  • Database Rights
  • Design Rights
  • Industry Specialisms
  • IP Contracts and Licences
  • IP Disputes
  • Patents and Inventions
  • Practice Areas
  • Trade Marks
  • Brexit and your Intellectual Property
  • Cease and Desist Letters
  • Ceyda Sam- Solicitor
  • Hasnath Ahmed – Solicitor
  • Image Rights
  • Joshuanne Amachie
  • Noyemie Sahakian – Solicitor
  • Ramsay Monime – Senior Associate
  • Samuel O’Toole
  • Tom Synott – Solicitor
  • Copyright Infringement by An Employee
  • IP Solicitors for Games Developers
  • DesignProtect Insurance
  • Furniture Design IP Dispute Case Study
  • IP for Fashion Designers
  • E-commerce
  • Entertainment and Media Law
  • Intellectual Property Audits
  • International Intellectual Property Rights
Categories
Subscribe
CONTACT US
  • Main Office
    Business Design Centre, 52 Upper Street, Islington, London N1 0QH, UK
  • Telephone : (44) 020 7288 6003, Email : info@briffa.com
  • Office in Europe
    Grand Central, 157 Archbishop Street, Valletta, VLT 1440, Malta
  • Email : info@briffa.com
Recent Posts
  • C is for Copyright Infringement 5th December 2019
  • Brand protection… the big questions answered 5th December 2019
  • New ammunition against trade mark squatters in China? 29th November 2019
Briffa tweets
  • Danish court rules artist's work cannot be cut up to make watches https://t.co/zoqGnQtYvU22 hours ago
  • Jay-Z is in the news again – this time for issuing proceedings against children’s author Jessica Chiha, who wrote “… https://t.co/IFL0CDHq60yesterday
  • Spent months developing the prefect brand name? Bought a domain name or registered a company name featuring brand?… https://t.co/vrxUSji8mdyesterday
Briffa is the trading name of Briffa Legal Limited: a company registered in England and Wales (No. 07655999) and authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (No. 561243). © Briffa