Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc

Interlego v Tyco Industries
Interlego v Tyco Industries
Court	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Full case name	Interlego A.G. v (1) Tyco Industries Inc, (2) Tyco (Hong Kong) Limited, (3) The Refined Industry Co. Limited and (4) Denifer Technology Limited
Decided	5 May 1988
Citation(s)	1 BLR 271, [1988] 2 FTLR 133, [1988] RPC 343, [1988] 3 All ER 949, [1988] 3 WLR 678, [1988] UKPC 3, [1989] AC 217
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting	Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Last updated July 10, 2020

Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc ([1989] AC 217, also known informally as the Lego case or the Lego brick case) was a case in copyright law that originated in Hong Kong that eventually went before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom.^[1]

Action

The plaintiff, Interlego AG, sued the defendant, Tyco Industries, for copyright infringement of its Lego bricks. However, it had previously registered its design.^{[ clarification needed ]} Under section 10 of the Copyright Act 1956, the right to protection as a registered design and copyright were not cumulative rights. The copyright was also a stronger right than the right to protection as a registered design. It had a longer duration.^[2]

Thus the plaintiff also moved for the court to determine that its bricks did not qualify for design protection under section 10 of the Copyright Act, so that they could qualify for copyright protection. To do so, the court had to apply a test to determine whether the bricks comprised a degree of aesthetic appeal, above the purely functional elements of their design, which would cause them to qualify to be registered designs.^[2]

To extend protection under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff argued that it had made revisions to its design drawings, and that as such they comprised original artistic works. The Copyright Act gave extensive protection to such drawings, including defining the making of an object from such a drawing an infringement of copyright, or that copying an object directly, without reference to its design drawings, constituted infringement of the copyright in the drawings.^[1]

Judgement

The court held that the bricks qualified for registered design protection, and thus did not qualify for copyright protection.^[2] Lord Oliver wrote as follows:^[3]

Inevitably a designer who sets out to make a model brick is going to end up by producing a design, in essence brick shaped. […] There is clearly scope in the instant case for that argument that what gives the Lego brick its individuality and the originality without which it would fail for want of novelty as a registrable design is the presence of features which serve only the functional purpose of enabling it to interlock effectively with the adjoining bricks above and below.
— Lord Oliver, Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc^[3]

The court further held that design drawings were a combination of both artistic and literary works. The written matter on such a drawing comprised the literary matter, and the graphics the artistic matter.^[4]

The only changes made to the drawings were alterations to some radii and to the dimensions of some elements. Lord Oliver wrote:^[1]

Take the simplest case of artistic copyright, a painting or a photograph. It takes great skill, judgement and labour to produce a good copy by painting or to produce an enlarged photograph from a positive print, but no-one would reasonably contend that the copy, painting, or enlargement was an "original" artistic work in which the copier is entitled to claim copyright. Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.
— Lord Oliver, Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc^[1]

Lord Oliver held that to afford copyright protection on a copy of a work, "[t]here must in addition be some element of material alteration or embellishment which suffices to make the totality of the work an original work". He stated that such an alteration or embellishment must be "visually significant", and that it is insufficient simply for the alteration to convey "information".^[5] Thus the court held that the modifications that Interlego had made to its designs did not constitute an original work, and thus were not afforded copyright protection. Although they may have involved skill, labour, and judgement, that skill, labour, and judgement lay solely in the process of copying.^[6]

Related Research Articles

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to make copies of a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.

In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

Lego A/S is a Danish toy production company based in Billund. It is best known for the manufacture of Lego-brand toys, consisting mostly of interlocking plastic bricks. The Lego Group has also built several amusement parks around the world, each known as Legoland, and operates numerous retail stores.

The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether a particular work can be copyrighted. It is used to distinguish works that are sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection from those that are not. In this context, "originality" refers to "coming from someone as the originator/author", rather than "never having occurred or existed before".

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, also known as the CDPA, is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 15 November 1988. It reformulates almost completely the statutory basis of copyright law in the United Kingdom, which had, until then, been governed by the Copyright Act 1956 (c. 74). It also creates an unregistered design right, and contains a number of modifications to the law of the United Kingdom on Registered Designs and patents.

Sweat of the brow is an intellectual property law doctrine, chiefly related to copyright law. According to this doctrine, an author gains rights through simple diligence during the creation of a work, such as a database, or a directory. Substantial creativity or "originality" is not required.

Copyright in architecture is an important, but little understood subject in the architectural discipline. Copyright is a legal concept that gives the creator of a work the exclusive right to use that work for a limited time. These rights can be an important mechanism through which architects can protect their designs.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is originality.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Under the law of United Kingdom, a copyright is an intangible property right subsisting in certain qualifying subject-matter. Copyright law is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as amended from time to time. As a result of increasing legal integration and harmonisation throughout the European Union a complete picture of the law can only be acquired through recourse to EU jurisprudence, although this is likely to change by the expiration of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, the UK having left the EU on 31 January 2020. On 12 September 2018 the European Parliament approved new copyright rules to help secure the rights of writers and musicians.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death. In the United States, any work published before January 1, 1925, is generally considered public domain.

British Leyland Motor Corp. v Armstrong Patents Co. is a 1986 decision of the House of Lords concerning the doctrine of non-derogation from grants. This doctrine is comparable to, but somewhat broader than, the doctrine of legal estoppel, assignor estoppel, or estoppel by deed in U.S. law. Under the doctrine of non-derogation from grants, a seller of realty or goods is not permitted to take any action that would lessen the value to the buyer of the thing sold.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

Gyles v Wilcox (1740) 26 ER 489 was a decision of the Court of Chancery of England that established the doctrine of fair abridgement, which would later evolve into the concept of fair use. The case was heard and the opinion written by Philip Yorke, 1st Earl of Hardwicke, and concerned Fletcher Gyles, a bookseller who had published a copy of Matthew Hale's Pleas of the Crown. Soon after the initial publication, the publishers Wilcox and Nutt hired a writer named Barrow to abridge the book, and repackaged it as Modern Crown Law. Gyles sued for a stay on the book's publishing, claiming his rights under the Statute of Anne had been infringed.

Typefaces, fonts, and their glyphs raise intellectual property considerations in copyright, trademark, design patent, and related laws. The copyright status of a typeface—and any font file that describes it digitally—varies between jurisdictions. In the United States, the shapes of typefaces are not eligible for copyright, though the shapes may be protected by design patent. Typefaces can be protected in other countries, including the UK, Germany, and France, by industrial design protections that are similar to copyright or design patent in that they protect the abstract shapes. Additionally, in the US and in some other countries, computer fonts—the digital instantiation of the shapes as vector outlines—may be protected by copyright on the computer code that produces them. The name of a typeface may also be protected as a trademark.

A Lego clone is a line or brand of children's construction blocks which is mechanically compatible with Lego brand blocks, but is produced by another manufacturer. The blocks were originally patented by The Lego Group in 1961 as "toy building bricks", and the company has since remained dominant in this market. Some competitors have moved to take advantage of Lego brand recognition by advertising their own products as compatible with Lego, with statements such as "compatible with leading building bricks".

Designer Guild Limited v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited, is a leading House of Lords case on what constitutes copying in copyright infringement cases. The House of Lords considered whether there was infringement of a fabric design. Although both the copyrighted work and the infringing design were different in detail, the overall impression of the designs was the same. This decision is significant because the House of Lords ruled that copyright infringement is dependent on whether the defendant copied a substantial portion of the original work, rather than whether the two works look the same. The outcome suggests that in the United Kingdom the overall impression of a copyrighted work is protected if the copied features involved the labour, skill and originality of the author's work, even if the copyrighted work and infringing work are different in detail.

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court decided under what circumstances aesthetic elements of "useful articles" can be restricted by copyright law. The Court created a two-prong "separability" test, granting copyrightability on conditions of separate identification and independent existence. In other words, the aesthetic elements must be identifiable as art if mentally separated from the article's practical use and must qualify as copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works if expressed in any medium.

Paul Oliver v. Samuel K. Boateng was a ground-breaking case concerning copyright law in Ghana by the High Court of Justice. It reaffirmed the laws of Copyright relating to the requirements of copyright protection and also, the law relating to authorship in Ghana. This case elaborated the fact that the law of Copyright in Ghana is a creature of Statute and setting out some major general principles in Copyright Law in Ghana. The facts involved Mr. Paul Oliver, a programmer, who claimed ownership of Copyright in two versions of a Rural Banking software called Rural Banker and E- finance respectively. Paul Oliver sued Samuel Boateng and the second defendant Victor Gbehodor for licensing his software to other rural banks without his permission. The court in this case, Fundamentally, relying heavily on Statute, which in this case was the Copyright Act, 2005 emphasized how statute dependent the Law of Copyright in Ghana is. The case also made reference to the various subject matter that are not Copyright-able in Ghana throwing a specific light on Ideas.it made it clear that a person who expresses the idea in a concrete form will rather be the Author of a work. Also, this case made some decisions regarding may be referred to as a joint Author and also threw some light on Infringement of Copyright, Damages and also highlighted the existence of idea/expression merger scenarios.

Registration of intellectual property in Ghana is key to safeguarding one's intellectual efforts from infringement. Intellectual property law of Ghana encompasses intellectual property (IP) laws in Ghana, such as laws governing copyright, patent, trademark, industrial design rights, and unfair competition. The main intellectual property laws in Ghana include the Copyright Act, 2005, the Patents Act, 2003, the Trademarks Act, 2004, the Industrial Designs Act, 2003 and the Protection Against Unfair Competition Act, 2000. These are supplemented by regulations passed by the Legislature to augment the rate of development under IP laws.

References

1 2 3 4 Groves, Peter J. (1997). "Copyright". Sourcebook on Intellectual Property Law . Cavendish Publishing. pp. 341. ISBN 978-184314292-8.
1 2 3 Isaac, Belinda (2000). Brand protection matters. Sweet amp;& Maxwell. p. 96. ISBN 978-042156930-0.
1 2 MacQueen, Hector L.; Waelde, Charlotte; Laurie, Graeme T. (2007). "Registered designs". Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 260. ISBN 978-019926339-4.
↑ Colston, Catherine (1999). Principles of intellectual property law. Routledge. p. 182. ISBN 978-185941465-1.
↑ Stokes, Simon (2001). Art and copyright . Hart Publishing. pp. 126. ISBN 978-184113225-9.
↑ Dworkin, Gerald; Taylor, Richard D. (1989). Blackstone's guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: the law of copyright and related rights. Oxford University Press US. p. 26. ISBN 978-185431023-1.

External links

Interlego A.G v Tyco Industries Inc & Ors (Hong Kong): full text of the decision.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Groves-1] 1 2 3 4 Groves, Peter J. (1997). "Copyright". Sourcebook on Intellectual Property Law . Cavendish Publishing. pp. 341. ISBN 978-184314292-8.

[Isaac-2] 1 2 3 Isaac, Belinda (2000). Brand protection matters. Sweet amp;& Maxwell. p. 96. ISBN 978-042156930-0.

[MacQueenWaeldeLaurie-3] 1 2 MacQueen, Hector L.; Waelde, Charlotte; Laurie, Graeme T. (2007). "Registered designs". Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 260. ISBN 978-019926339-4.

[Colston-4] Colston, Catherine (1999). Principles of intellectual property law. Routledge. p. 182. ISBN 978-185941465-1.

[Stokes-5] Stokes, Simon (2001). Art and copyright . Hart Publishing. pp. 126. ISBN 978-184113225-9.

[Blackstone-6] Dworkin, Gerald; Taylor, Richard D. (1989). Blackstone's guide to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: the law of copyright and related rights. Oxford University Press US. p. 26. ISBN 978-185431023-1.