The appropriate scope of property rights in registered designs

• Citation: (2017) IPLJ 34
• Published date: 24 May 2019
• Pages: 34-57
• Date: 24 May 2019

THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF

PROPERTY RIGHTS IN REGISTERED

DESIGNS†

 

Senior Lecture r, Department of Mercantile Law, Scho ol of Law, University of South

Africa

  

BMW v Grandmark Intern ational1 and Chespak v MCG Industrie s2 are two

recent South Africa n design law cases which provide some clarity on the scope

of design protection, the in herent limits provided by the Designs Act 195 of

1993 (the Designs Act) and, particularly, the interplay between a esthetic and

functional feat ures of a design.

Designs (like other categor ies of intellectual propert y) are recognised

and protected as a sui gene ris category of property u nder private law, since

the Designs Act provides proper ty rule-ty pe protection to design rights,

which position private law respects. Hence, t he property rights should also

be accepted as const itutional property. Constitut ional interpretation ma kes

provision for the protection of rights in design s, but also has the potential of

limiting these r ights in the public interest where necessar y, just like any other

form of property.3

† This art icle is based on a present ation at the Conferenc e of the South Africa n Association of

Intellectu al Property L aw and Information Technolog y Law Teachers and Researche rs on 21–22

June 2017 at the Stellenbosch I nstitute for Advanc ed Study. I wish to than k the particip ants of the

conference for t heir valuable comment s, particularly Mr Cobu s Jooste (Lectu rer Stellenbosch

University and Fellow, Ant on Mostert Chair of I ntellectual Pro perty) and Mr Ch ris Job (Partne r,

Adams & Adams). Th is article was wr itten dur ing research and d evelopment leave grant ed by the

University of South A frica from May 2017–Januar y 2018.

 

1 Bayerisch e Motoren Werke Aktiengesell schaft v Grandmark Inter national (Pty) Ltd & anothe r

2014 (1) SA 323 (SCA) (BMW (SCA)). This is the fi rst case dealing w ith the spare par ts exception

in s 14(6) of the Designs Act 195 of 1993 (the Design s Act) and hence represents t he first

opportu nity that the cou rts have had to provid e some clarity on the sco pe of this exception.

Therefore it is nece ssary to refer t o foreign law in discu ssing the appropr iate interp retation of this

exception and the d ecision of the court.

2 Chespak (Pt y) Ltd v MCG Industries (P ty) Ltd 2014 BIP 465 (GP).

3 For an overv iew of the position of constit utional proper ty protection of int ellectual prope rty

rights in te rms of s 25 of the Constit ution of the Republic of South Af rica 1996, see A J van

der Walt Constitutional property law 3 ed (2011) 143–50; M du Bois ‘Intellectu al property as a

   SA Merc LJ 177; O H Dean

                EIPR 576;

      

(eds) Dean & Dyer int roduction to intellectu al property law (2013) 466; A J van der Walt and

   PER / PELJ 51.

34

(2017) IPLJ 34

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

The main pur pose of this article is to highlight t he important issues

regarding the scope of design r ights and to show how the application of

the constitutional prop erty clause is relevant to this categor y of intellectual

              

              

differences betwee n aesthetic and functiona l designs; the second part notes

some important a spects of constitutional proper ty protection for design rights;

the third par t highlights some import ant aspects of design infr ingement and

exclusions that are relevant to the scope of design protection; t he fourth

part deals with t he BMW v Grandmark decisions of the High Court4 and the

Supreme Court of Appeal;5   Chespak v MCG

decisions.6

   

The Designs Act creates a t wo-part regist er — one for aesthetic and the other

   

        

features which appeal t o and are judged solely by the eye, whether it has

     

dictated by the fu nction that the article must per form.7 An aesthetic design

must be new and original,8 wh ile a functional design must be new and not

commonplace in the ar t in question.9

A design is deemed to be new if it is not par t of the state of the art im mediately

before the date of application for registration or the relea se date, whichever is

earlier.10 The state of the art i ncludes all matter that has been made available to

the public in South Africa or elsewhe re by written description, u se or any other

way. 11 Originality, as requi red for an aesthetic design, is close to the mean ing

of this requirement i n copyright law — in other words, the designer must have

4 Bayerisch e Motoren Werke Aktiengesell schaft v Grandmark Inter national (Pty) Ltd & anothe r

2012 BIP 287 (GNP) (BMW (GNP)) .

5 BMW (SCA ) (n1).

6 MCG Industri es (Pty) Ltd v Chespak (P ty) Ltd 2011 BIP 284 (GNP); Chespak (n2).

7 Section 1(1) of the Designs Act.

8 See Clipsal Austra lia (Pty) Ltd v Trust Electr ical Wholesalers 20 09 (3) SA 292 (SCA) para

[13], where the Supreme Cour t of Appeal for the first ti me dealt with registered d esigns under

the Designs Act. T he court confir med the principle that novelt y should be assessed agai nst the

background of t he prior art relevant to the des ign. The court stated t hat a new combination of

prior art is p ermissible and such a de sign would still be novel. On th is case, see F Joffe ‘Designs

     JBL 24, 27: The case provides som e welcome

clarity on as pects of the Designs Act, but si multaneously highl ights ‘just what a poorly thoug ht



9 Section 14(1) of the Designs Act.

10 Section 14(2) of the Designs Act. S ee Clipsal (n8) para [8], wher e the Supreme Court of App eal

stated that t he eye appeal criterio n must be used in deter mining the questio n of novelty (as well

as infringe ment).

11                       

H Klopper et al T he law of intellectual prope rty in South Africa (2011) 227 236–40; L Cillie rs

      Burrells Sou th African

patent and de sign law 4 ed (2016) para [9.72].

THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN REGISTERED DESIGNS 35

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd