The Janger Ltd v Tesco Plc

A product may be a garment hanger if it is suitable for hanging garments. It need not be optimal, commercially attractive, or designed for retail use, and its character is not altered by the name given to it or the user’s intention. A rail-engaging portion may have a broad meaning and need not satisfy requirements as to the size or shape of the rail. For anticipation, the prior publication must give clear and unmistakable directions to do what is claimed. A claimed modification is obvious where it applies a known design feature to achieve a known function without invention.

The claimant owned a patent for a hangable garment hook. The defendant admitted infringement but challenged validity. Claims 1 and 4 were alleged to be anticipated or obvious over a United States design patent for a clothes hanger holder, while claim 5 was alleged to be obvious over that design. All claims were also challenged on the basis of an earlier disclosure of the Globalhanger to Marks & Spencer.

The issues were the construction of “garment hanger”, “rail engaging portion” and “tail flange”; whether the Jones design anticipated or rendered the claims obvious; and whether the Globalhanger had been disclosed in enabling circumstances and without an obligation of confidence.

1. Construction. A garment hanger means a product for hanging garments. It need not be optimal or commercially attractive, and there is no subjective element based on intended use or labelling. The term does not require arms or shoulders. A rail-engaging portion includes an opening capable of engaging a rail and imposes no requirement as to the rail’s size or shape. “Tail flange” includes common general knowledge lead-ins performing the same guiding and opening functions.

2. Jones. The Jones design disclosed a product for hanging garments, an opening capable of engaging a rail, and a first stem section extending from the rail-engaging portion. Claim 1 was therefore anticipated. The schematic drawings did not disclose unambiguously that the opening was less than half the spacer length, so claim 4 was not anticipated.

3. Claims 4 and 5 were nevertheless obvious over Jones. The narrow-opening feature involved a familiar trade-off between ease of loading and retention. There was no inventive significance in selecting a ratio of less than half. Adding a known tail flange to improve loading and compensate for a narrower opening was likewise obvious. The fact that Jones was called a clothes hanger holder did not place it outside the class of garment hangers.

4. Globalhanger. The disclosure comprised a two-image PDF supplemented by an oral explanation. It was sufficiently clear and enabling to an experienced industry professional. Applying the objective test for an obligation of confidence, the private supplier-purchaser meeting, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the evidence of both sides established that the disclosure was made under conditions of confidence.

5. Claim 1 was anticipated by Jones, and claims 4 and 5 were obvious over Jones. The court would hear counsel on the form of order.