Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd

In registered-design infringement, the relevant comparison is the overall impression produced on the informed user, assessed against the design corpus and the designer’s degree of freedom. The comparison is made by reference to the date of registration. A feature is excluded as dictated solely by technical function only where technical considerations were the exclusive reason for its selection. Design freedom may be constrained by technical requirements, common product features and economic considerations. Similarities attributable to constrained features may carry limited weight, while differences in freely chosen and visually prominent features may be significant.

Dyson alleged that Vax’s Mach Zen vacuum cleaner infringed UK Registered Design No. 2,043,779, registered under the pre-implementation Registered Designs Act 1949. The design protected the appearance of a cylinder vacuum cleaner associated with Dyson’s DC02. Validity was not challenged.

The principal issues were the effect of the statement of novelty, the relevant design corpus, the meaning of features dictated solely by technical function, the designer’s degree of freedom, the date for comparing the designs, and the overall impression produced on the informed user.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Mach Zen produced a different overall impression from the Registered Design.
2. The statement of novelty directed attention to shape and configuration but did not confine protection exclusively to the specified features. The transparency of the bin could therefore contribute to the visual appearance of the design.
3. The relevant design corpus consisted of cylinder vacuum cleaners generally, rather than a separate category of cyclonic cylinder cleaners. The comparison was to be made as at the date of registration, having regard to the design corpus existing at that date.
4. Article 7(1) of the Designs Directive, corresponding to article 8(1) of the Community Designs Regulation, excludes features selected exclusively to achieve a technical solution. The court preferred the objective approach in Lindner Recyclingtech GmBH v Franssons Verkstader AB [2010] ECDR 1 to the narrower interpretation adopted in Landor & Hawa International Ltd v Azure Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1285. The transparent bin had been chosen for both technical and aesthetic reasons and was not excluded.
5. Under article 9(2), design freedom must be assessed by reference to the technical specification, technical constraints, common features, and relevant economic considerations. Evidence of later varied designs may assist, but must be treated cautiously where the products have materially different specifications.
6. The informed user would notice similarities, including the inclined transparent bin, large rear wheels and curved central handle. Those similarities had limited significance because of technical or practical constraints and the many differences in their detailed design. Significant differences included the rear view, hose connector, bin handle, wand handle, cut-away feature, bumper and the Mach Zen’s asymmetry.
7. Standing back from the details, the Registered Design appeared smooth, curving and elegant, whereas the Mach Zen appeared rugged, angular and industrial. The overall impressions were different.