Ultraframe v Clayton, 2003 RPC, 23
Citation:Ultraframe v Clayton, 2003 RPC, 23
Rule of thumb:Is it a trade mark infringement to make replacement parts for established brands? No, this is deemed to be fair competition.
Judgment:
Where someone has a product that is broken and it needs a replacement part, the person can buy it from any manufacturer, even if the replacement part is an exact copy of a registered design. This is a ‘must fit’ exception to the design laws. The Court held that the intention of the legislature is that there cannot be a monopoly on replacement parts to stop an article being functional unless replacement parts are bought from the original manufacturer, ‘When the legislature included the must fit provisions in the Act, was it intending to ensure that competitors were to be able to supply the same component, or merely something which fitted into the composite article of which it was a part? If the latter, then it is only the interface which is excluded from protection, not the rest of the design. If it is the latter, the competitor has to do his own design work except for the interface. In my judgement it is tolerably clear that the legislature only wanted to deprive the interface feature of protection’.
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.