The Full Wiki



More info on LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd.

LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd.: Wikis

  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

Updated live from Wikipedia, last check: June 03, 2012 15:09 UTC (53 seconds ago)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'''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.

The position under United States federal copyright law is diametrically opposite.[6]

See also

References

  1. ^ [1979] R.P.C. 551, [1979] F.S.R. 145 (H.L.)
  2. ^ "Chapter 3A - I.P. Protection of Digital Rights in the New Millennium". docs.law.gwu.edu. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/ch3a.htm#Swish. Retrieved 2008-12-23.  
  3. ^ Leyland [1986] A.C. 577, [1986] All E.R. 850 (H.L.)
  4. ^ "Chapter 3A - I.P. Protection of Digital Rights in the New Millennium". docs.law.gwu.edu. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/ch3a.htm#Leyland. Retrieved 2008-12-23.  
  5. ^ [1997] A.C. 728, [1997] F.S.R. 817.
  6. ^ 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?"







Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message
Please enter the solution to case below
70+12=