Where a design which is applied to a set is registered, the proprietor gets the same protection as if the design for each article had been registered individually. In Ford Motor Company and Iveco Fiat’s Design Applications [1993] RPC 417–24 the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal held that designs for certain replacement parts for motor vehicles were not registrable. Designs for other parts could, however, be registered. Here is the decision of the Tribunal (J Jeffs, Esq, QC): the applicants appealed against the refusal of registration, and Ford (though not Iveco) went to the House of Lords on the matter. The House of Lords upheld the Tribunal’s decision, and its decision can be found at [1995] 1 WLR 18:

doi:10.4324/9781843142928-80

Chapter

Where a design which is applied to a set is registered, the proprietor gets the same protection as if the design for each article had been registered individually. In Ford Motor Company and Iveco Fiat’s Design Applications [1993] RPC 417–24 the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal held that designs for certain replacement parts for motor vehicles were not registrable. Designs for other parts could, however, be registered. Here is the decision of the Tribunal (J Jeffs, Esq, QC): the applicants appealed against the refusal of registration, and Ford (though not Iveco) went to the House of Lords on the matter. The House of Lords upheld the Tribunal’s decision, and its decision can be found at [1995] 1 WLR 18:

Chapter

Where a design which is applied to a set is registered, the proprietor gets the same protection as if the design for each article had been registered individually. In Ford Motor Company and Iveco Fiat’s Design Applications [1993] RPC 417–24 the Registered Designs Appeal Tribunal held that designs for certain replacement parts for motor vehicles were not registrable. Designs for other parts could, however, be registered. Here is the decision of the Tribunal (J Jeffs, Esq, QC): the applicants appealed against the refusal of registration, and Ford (though not Iveco) went to the House of Lords on the matter. The House of Lords upheld the Tribunal’s decision, and its decision can be found at [1995] 1 WLR 18:

ABSTRACT

Here again there are difficulties. In the first place, there is the question whether the context of s 1(1) requires an alternative meaning. Second, what is meant by ‘made and sold separately’? This apparently simple phrase is not quite so simple as it seems, but I shall return to this. Before leaving the Act, I must refer to one of the provisions which was canvassed in argument. Section 7(6) reads: ‘The right in a registered design is not infringed by the reproduction of a feature of the design which, by virtue of s l(l)(b), is left out of account in determining whether the design is registrable’. In the parliamentary debates preceding the passing of the bill, and subsequently in the analyses of many commentators, the provisions of s 1(1)(b)(1) have been referred to as the ‘must fit’ provisions and those of s 1(1)(b)(2) have been referred to as the ‘must match’ provisions. This is a useful shorthand and I shall use it. As I have already mentioned, all the designs are for components of motor vehicles. Such vehicles are assembled from a number of component parts: main body panels. doors, the bonnet lid, the boot lid. the windscreen, and suchlike, all of which form part and contribute to the overall shape and appearance of the vehicle. I shall consider these first and shall refer to them as the first group. Then there are parts which, while in situ are contributing features to the appearance of the vehicle, are subsidiary to its essential shape. These include such items as wing mirrors, wheels, seats and the steering wheel, where substitutions are possible while leaving the general shape and appearance of the vehicle unaffected. I shall consider these separately later and shall refer to them as the second group.