Following the recent post about Trading Standards now being given free rein to go after criminal copyright infringers, Dids Macdonald of ACID (Anti-Copying in Design) would like to know why similar help isn't available for when design rights (whether registered or unregistered) are blatantly infringed. She says:
"Whilst ACID welcomes the latest Government order (the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2007, C.27 after a staggering 13 year delay to give Trading Standards "powers and duties" by including copyright infringement within their remit, interestingly, design right holders are still sidelined despite the reference to the Copyright, DESIGNS and Patents Act 1988. If it took this long (and an enormous amount of intense lobbying by groups such as the Alliance Against IP Theft) to improve the position for copyright holders - will it be another 13 years before Government decides to support innovators by including design right infringement?
What is the difference between between making it a criminal offence to make, distribute or sell such items as CD's, DVD's etc but not to make, distribute or sell knock off furniture, for example?"
To illustrate the point, the picture above shows a recent haul demonstrating blatant design right infringement of Villeroy & Boch china (very nice it is too; this Kat paid full price for some lovely cups). However, even with the recent change in the law, Trading Standards would not be able to help if the same thing occurred again. Something is clearly not quite right.
The IPKat doesn't have a simple answer to this, merely noting that the criminal measures of the CDPA (section 107 et seq) only relate to infringement of a copyright work, and that the Registered Designs Act doesn't have any criminal measures in it. However, he does suspect that the strong lobbying powers of the recording industry probably have something to do with the emphasis on copyright at the expense of designs.
Do any readers have any answers or suggestions?
What about design rights?
Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Rating:
Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html