1 (1) In this Act “design” means features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process, being features which in the finished article appeal to and are judged by the eye, but does not include—
(a)a method or principle of construction, or
(b)features of shape or configuration of an article which—
(i)are dictated solely by the function which the article has to perform, or
(ii)are dependent upon the appearance of another article of which the article is intended by the author of the design to form an integral part.
(5) In determining for the purpose of the definition of “qualifying person” whether substantial business activity is carried on at a place of business in any country, no account shall be taken of dealings in goods which are at all material times outside that country.
Applies the requirement that a design be created in the course of employment with a qualifying person. The court found that the claimant’s managing director was employed expressly or impliedly and that the designs qualified for UK unregistered design protection (see paras [165]-[169]).
The court considered employee creation as a possible basis for UK design right but found no good arguable case that Logitech owned such right. (see paras [107]; [119]-[123])
Applies the commissioning requirement and accepts that the designs were created by UKE pursuant to a commission from Vitof. The designs therefore qualified for design right, subject to the unresolved ownership issue. (see para [165])