About: LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FLB_%28Plastics%29_Ltd_v_Swish_Products_Ltd

LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd., is a 1979 decision of the House of Lords as to whether a physical object is an infringing copy of a drawing depicting the object. The House of Lords held that it is, at least when an ordinary person could recognize that physical object was that which the drawing depicted. However, section 51 of the later enacted Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 reduced the applicability of this rule, in that it is only infringement of copyright or design right in design drawings where the design is of an artistic work or a typeface.

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd (en)
rdfs:comment
  • LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd., is a 1979 decision of the House of Lords as to whether a physical object is an infringing copy of a drawing depicting the object. The House of Lords held that it is, at least when an ordinary person could recognize that physical object was that which the drawing depicted. However, section 51 of the later enacted Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 reduced the applicability of this rule, in that it is only infringement of copyright or design right in design drawings where the design is of an artistic work or a typeface. (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
has abstract
  • LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd., is a 1979 decision of the House of Lords as to whether a physical object is an infringing copy of a drawing depicting the object. The House of Lords held that it is, at least when an ordinary person could recognize that physical object was that which the drawing depicted. The House of Lords later reaffirmed the principle stated in this case in British Leyland Motor Corp. v. Armstrong Patents Co., saying that it must be regarded as "settled law". The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Canon K.K. v. Green Cartridge Co. again reaffirmed the principle. However, section 51 of the later enacted Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 reduced the applicability of this rule, in that it is only infringement of copyright or design right in design drawings where the design is of an artistic work or a typeface. The position under United States federal copyright law is diametrically opposite. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 60 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software