Here's another question from Andrew Clay (Head of IP, Hammonds LLP). It relates to the UK's
Registered Designs Act 1949, section 19(1), which states
"Where any person becomes entitled by assignment, transmission or operation of law to a registered design or to a share in a registered design, or becomes entitled as mortgagee, licensee or otherwise to any other interest in a registered design, he shall apply to the registrar in the prescribed manner for the registration of his title as proprietor or co-proprietor or, as the case may be, of notice of his interest, in the register of designs".
Andrew asks:
"Section 19(1) RDA - what is all this about? You shall register but what happens if you don't? You can't sue for infringement (section 7) but the section 19(4) restriction on who can deal has gone. Do you lose out to a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice or not, as for patents or trade marks? Why aren't the provisions clear on what is an important point, especially following umpteen revisions of the RDA? What could possibly be the policy reason for this difference in treatment?"
Any thoughts, folks?
Here's another question from Andrew Clay (Head of IP, Hammonds LLP). It relates to the UK's Registered Designs Act 1949, section 19(1), which states 
At first glance (all I can manage before breakfast!) section 15B seems to be a fairly straight replacement for sction 19(4), the amendments being made by SI 2006/1028 to implement the enforcement directive. But further than that I cannot see why this might have been done. There must be more to it than meets the eye!
ReplyDeleteThe answer is historical, not contextual. S19(1) follows s74(1) of the 1949 Patents Act (superseded by the 1977 Act). Of the latter the CIPA Blue Book 2nd ed says that although registration appeared mandatory it was in fact optional though preferred. It could only be rationalised by primary legislation, which I have been told for a decade won't happen any time soon - the Enforcement Directive required a change to allow exclusive licensees to sue and the Registry (flushed with success from Animal v Oakley (CA)) used this to tinker with the margins in s15A/s15B but they couldn't make a wholesale reform of s19.
ReplyDelete