tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5835571460089235476..comments2024-03-19T06:27:47.905+00:00Comments on The IPKat: It's a Wrap! Albert Packaging v Nampak [2011] EWPCC 15Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27620202119164946882020-11-15T15:17:09.634+00:002020-11-15T15:17:09.634+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.James taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097259755359991139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62523858147591920262011-08-30T17:54:28.013+01:002011-08-30T17:54:28.013+01:00How do we know that Nampak didn't fix the evid...How do we know that Nampak didn't fix the evidence. Why did they not release their design until after Albert put theirs on the market? Bigger and larger firms are clever at covering things up, Nampak could easily have hired an IT expert to back date all computers 5 years or so so as the hide infringment and make it look like they were the genuine designers. Having said that my mind is still open on this case. Design infringement destroys the UK economy, design infringers irritate meAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30521879215648238242011-06-22T15:04:09.644+01:002011-06-22T15:04:09.644+01:00Actually their were two different drawings from 20...Actually their were two different drawings from 2005 with the same reference and the Judge accepted a scanning problem had caused the difference in the two drawings without evidence from an expert. Had an expert been supplied it would have been found their were two drawings from the same source and then the 2005 drawing could not have been relied upon and the outcome would have been different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com