Footnotes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TD Burrell "Designs" 8 LAWSA 2ed para 257. Further references to LAWSA are to this edition and volume.
Design Regulations GNR 844 of 2 July 1999 reg 15(1).
Schultz v Butt 1986 (3) SA 667 (AD) at 686DG per Nicholas AJA; Jones & Attwood Ltd v National Radiator Co Ltd (1928)
45 RPC 71 at 83 lines 512.
Homecraft Steel Industries (Pty) Ltd v SM Hare & Son (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 681 (AD) at 692BD per Corbett JA. I agree
with these comments by Jacob J in Oren and Tiny Love Ltd v Red Box Toy Factory Ltd [1999] EWHC Patents 255:
"I do not think, generally speaking, that 'expert' evidence of this opinion sort (ie as to what ordinary consumers would
see) in cases involving registered designs for consumer products is ever likely to be useful. There is a feeling amongst
lawyers that one must always have an expert, but this is not so. Noone should feel that their case might be
disadvantaged by not having an expert in an area when expert evidence is unnecessary. Evidence of technical or
factual matters, as opposed to consumer 'eye appeal' may, on the other hand, sometimes have a part to play that
would be to give the court information or understanding which it could not provide itself."
Homecraft (supra) at 692D.
Lord Morris of BorthYGest in Amp Inc v Utilux (Pty) Ltd 1972 RPC 103 (HL) at 112 quoted with approval in Homecraft
at 691DF.
Amp Inc v Utilux (Pty) Ltd (supra) at 121 quoted with approval in Robinson v D Cooper Corporation of SA (Pty) Ltd
1984 (3) SA 699 (A) at 704G per Corbett JA.
Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs 2ed vol 1 para 30.40.
C f KimberlyClark of SA (Pty) Ltd (formerly Carlton Paper of SA (Pty) Ltd) v Proctor & Gamble SA (Pty) Ltd
[1998] 3 All SA 77, 1998 (4) SA 1 (A). Also s 32:
"Registration of a design shall be granted for one design only, but no person may in any proceedings apply for the
revocation of such registration on the ground that it comprises more than one design."
Jones & Attwood at 82 line 4449.
Moody v Tree (1892) 9 RPC 333 at 335.
Le May v Welch (1884) 28 Ch D 24 at 35; Sebel's Applications [1959] RPC 12 at 14.
Schultz v Butt 1986 (3) SA 667 (A).
Schultz v Butt (supra) at 686G687G.
C f Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A) at 648EG, a patent case under the Patents, Designs,
Trade Marks and Copyright Act 9 of 1916.
I am aware that this "rule" is usually used in a different context but the underlying principle appears to be applicable.
Cincinnati Grinders Inc v BSA Tools Ltd (1931) 48 RPC 33 at 58.