LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd.,[1][2] is a 1979 decision of the House of Lords as to whether a physical object is an infringing copy of a drawing depicting the object. The House of Lords held that it is, at least when an ordinary person could recognize that physical object was that which the drawing depicted.
The House of Lords later reaffirmed the principle stated in this case in British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co.,[3][4] saying that it must be regarded as "settled law". The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Canon K.K. v. Green Cartridge Co.[5] again reaffirmed the principle.
However, section 51 of the later enacted Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 reduced the applicability of this rule, in that it is only infringement of copyright or design right in design drawings where the design is of an artistic work or a typeface.
The position under United States federal copyright law is diametrically opposite.[6]
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ [1979] R.P.C. 551, [1979] F.S.R. 145 (H.L.)
- ^ "Chapter 3A - I.P. Protection of Digital Rights in the New Millennium". docs.law.gwu.edu. Retrieved 23 December 2008.
- ^ Leyland Archived 2011-06-10 at the Wayback Machine [1986] A.C. 577, [1986] All E.R. 850 (H.L.)
- ^ "Chapter 3A - I.P. Protection of Digital Rights in the New Millennium". docs.law.gwu.edu. Retrieved 23 December 2008.
- ^ [1997] A.C. 728, [1997] F.S.R. 817.
- ^ See, e.g., Muller v. Triboro Bridge Authority, 43 F. Supp. 298 (S.D.N.Y. 1942). See also Copyright, section captioned "What is a copy?"
  | This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |