Home » Designs » Intellectual Property Bill – Amendments Proposed to Clause 13

Intellectual Property Bill – Amendments Proposed to Clause 13

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament

Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament

Following the second reading of the Intellectual Property Bill in the House of Commons on Monday (20th January), David Willetts (Con)(Hampshire), the Minister for Universities and Science, has proposed some amendments to the Bill. The proposal includes amendments to Clause 13 that relates to criminal sanctions for copying a registered design.

These amendments on quick review look promising and appear to bring the provision closer into line with the explanatory notes to the Bill. A tracked changes copy of the proposal is below but the amendments basically introduce the fact the design has to be intentionally copied  and remove the “substantially to the design” wording.

Seeing as there seems to be little chance of Clause 13 being deleted, the proposed amendments appear to be the next best thing. Hoepfully, the calls from some parties for the prosivions of Clause 13 to be extended to unregistered design rights will be resisted!

[Update:  the Committee stage of proceedings has been set for 28th-30th January 2014 – see here]

35ZA Offence of unauthorised copying etc. of design in course of business

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)in the course of a business, the person intentionally copies a registered design

(i) exactly to that design, or

(ii) with features that differ only in immaterial details from that design so as to make a product exactly or substantially to that design,
and

(b) the person does so—

(i)knowing, or having reason to believe, that the design is a registered design, and

(ii)without the consent of the registered proprietor of the design.

(2) Subsection (3) applies in relation to a product where a registered design has been intentionally copied so as to make the product exactly or substantially to the design

(a) exactly to the design, or

(b) with features that differ only in immaterial details from the design.

(3)A person commits an offence if—

(a)in the course of a business, the person offers, puts on the market, imports, exports or uses the product, or stocks it for one or more of those purposes,

(b)the person does so without the consent of the registered proprietor of the design, and

(c)the person does so knowing, or having reason to believe, that—

(i) a design has been intentionally copied without the consent of the registered proprietor so as to make the product exactly or substantially to the design to the design or with features that differ only in immaterial details from the design, and

(ii)the design is a registered design.

(4)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the person reasonably believed that the registration of the design was invalid.

The definitions of Relevant article and Relevant product have also been amended under this proposal to read:

(2)“Relevant product” means a product which is made exactly or substantially to a registered design to a registered design, or with features that differ only in immaterial details from a registered design by  copying that design intentionally.

(3)“Relevant article” means an article which is specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a registered design intentionally.

Mark Richardson 22 January 2014


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: