Rolawn Ltd & Anor v Turfmech Machinery Ltd

Unregistered design right protects the physical appearance of an article, or an aspect of its shape or configuration, rather than an abstract idea or general method of construction. A combination of commonplace features may nevertheless produce an original design if the particular overall configuration is not commonplace. Copying ideas or constructional principles does not infringe unless the resulting article is exactly or substantially to the protected design.

For registered designs, validity depends on the informed user’s overall impression and the design corpus, with the designer’s freedom taken into account. Infringement likewise requires the accused design not to produce a different overall impression. Comparisons must remain sufficiently particular and visual; broad verbal descriptions are inadequate.

Rolawn designed and built wide-area cylinder mowers for use on its turf farms. Turfmech later designed and sold Maximow 13 and Maximow 17 mowers. Rolawn alleged infringement of unregistered design right through copying and infringement of registered designs.

Turfmech denied copying and counterclaimed for invalidity of the registered designs, alleging lack of individual character and that features were dictated solely by technical function. The central issues were the scope of the claimed unregistered designs, copying, substantial reproduction, registered-design validity and whether the Maximow machines produced a different overall impression.

1. Unregistered design right. The court found that Turfmech had access to Rolawn’s publicity photographs and had taken some general ideas, including the concept of a towed mower with wings and the idea of folding the wings over. However, the evidence did not establish copying of the physical designs or of the more detailed features alleged. The other similarities were explained by ordinary engineering choices, commonplace mower design or independent development. The aggregate similarities did not alter that conclusion. (See paras [45]-[74].)
2. Under Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, section 213, design right protects an aspect of the actual shape or configuration of an article. It does not protect an underlying abstraction, conception or general approach to construction. The claimed designs therefore had to be assessed as physical manifestations, not as ideas such as folding arms, a tank between supports or a particular arrangement of mower heads. (See paras [75]-[84].)
3. The particular overall configurations of the Rolawn mower, including its extended, semi-retracted and fully retracted forms, were not commonplace in the relevant field of agricultural machinery. Individual commonplace features could form part of a protected combination. Generalised features, however, could fall within the exclusion for a method or principle of construction. (See paras [85]-[96].)
4. There was no infringement under section 226. The copying found concerned ideas or constructional principles, not the design itself. In any event, the Maximow machines were not exactly or substantially to the Rolawn designs. Their visual appearance, folding arrangements, support structures, cutter arrangements and rear assemblies were materially different. (See paras [97]-[101].)
5. Registered design. The registered designs had individual character under section 1B of the Registered Designs Act 1949. Viewed by an informed user familiar with turf-growing machinery and agricultural equipment, the Rolawn designs produced a clearly different overall impression from the prior art. The technical-function objection under section 1C was not developed and failed. (See paras [102]-[122].)
6. The Maximow machines did not infringe section 7. The comparison had to be made photograph by photograph and by visual assessment, using an appropriately particular level of generality. The machines’ differences, including the triangular gantry, additional wheels, support structures, tanks and fully folded configurations, produced a different overall impression. Design freedom did not change that result. (See paras [123]-[129].)
7. The claim and the counterclaim were dismissed. (See para [130].)