Industrial Designs
Safepak Limited v General Plastic Limited (Civil Suit 588 of 2014) [2019] KEHC 11821 (KLR) (17 October 2019) (Judgment)
Facts
Safepak owned registered Industrial Design No. 666 (registered 2012), a honeycomb pattern on a bottle's shoulder. General Plastic manufactured bottles with a substantially similar honeycomb feature; General Plastic argued the design lacked novelty and was in the public domain.
Issues
Whether General Plastic infringed Design No. 666, and whether the High Court could itself rule on the design's validity and novelty or must defer that question to the Industrial Property Tribunal.
Rule
Industrial Property Act ss.84-86 (design definition and registrability), s.92 (rights conferred), s.103 (validity challenge procedure, exclusive to the Tribunal under s.103(11)), s.105 (infringement); Industrial Property Regulations 2002 reg.47(8); the Giella v Cassman Brown test.
Analysis
A 2015 interlocutory ruling held novelty and validity challenges must be proved before the Industrial Property Tribunal, not the High Court, which lacks original jurisdiction to revoke a design; an interim injunction issued preserving the status quo. The 2019 final judgment confirmed Safepak's bona fide registered ownership and found the honeycomb feature substantially reproduced, constituting infringement under s.105.
Conclusion
Permanent injunction granted restraining manufacture, import and sale of the infringing bottles, delivery-up and destruction of moulds, and disclosure of supply-chain information; costs to Safepak.
Judgement available at kenyalaw.org.