Fairfax & Favor Limited & Ors. v The House Bruar Limited & Ors.
Decision date: 25 March 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 689 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerned whether three boot designs sold by The House of Bruar infringed Fairfax & Favor’s registered Community design (RCD) and UK unregistered design rights in the "Heeled Regina" knee boot. The court found the Claimant’s full Heeled Regina design to be original and subsisting as an unregistered design and held the RCD valid; Bruar deliberately copied F&F. Versions 1 and 2 were found to infringe both the unregistered design and the RCD; Version 3 was copied but did not infringe either the unregistered design or the RCD because it produced a different overall impression.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The decision turns on (a) subsistence of unregistered design protection and (b) individual character for the RCD being satisfied by the full‑height rear elasticated gusset overlaid with vertical leather strips as a visually significant, novel feature even though other elements were commonplace; and on copying evidence showing deliberate imitation. Prior obscure designs not shown to be current or reasonably discoverable were not treated as relevant prior art for assessing commonness or individual character.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment observes that a retailer’s use of photographs of genuine third‑party goods in its catalogue to advertise lookalikes can indicate the retailer regarded the goods as interchangeable and may evidence copying. It also notes that a claimant witness’s later uncertainty about precise dates does not automatically undermine credibility, subject to corroboration for dating.