|The Starck 3|
In the case of both parties' toilets there was (i) a raised rear edge, (ii) a clearly marked band around the outside of the bowl and (iii) square mounting holes in the sides. The design of the band and the mounting holes, and to some extent the design of the raised rear edge, were not functional but were largely the result of the designer's fancy. However, the informed user would have different impressions of the two products since (i) the Starck 3-toilet was much longer than the BEN Studio-toilet, creating the effect of a distinct space between the rear edge and the seat and (ii) Starck had a less sharp band around the outside of the bowl, less significant and different designed cuts for the mounting holes and more rounded edges, producing a narrower and more elegant impression than did BEN. This being so, there was no infringement.
The Court ordered Duravit to pay Dkr50,000 in costs to B&N.
Class 99 would have liked to know more about this case. In particular, in relation to which precedents and what standards did the court determine who was the informed user?
Source: "Court rejects design registration violation claim" by Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen (Norsker & Co, Denmark), published online for International Law Office.