## Facts

- In 2004, Apple obtained a European Registered Community Design (RCD), effective in the United Kingdom, covering the physical design of an early tablet computer.
- Functional requirements meant the device needed a rectangular shape and a flat, transparent front screen; within those limits, Apple chose a minimalist front with no ornamentation, sharp right-angled corners, and a very thin profile (for 2004).
- Over the following years, Samsung and other manufacturers entered the tablet market. Many tablets incorporated features such as speaker grilles and camera holes for functional reasons and tended toward thinner and more rounded styling than Apple’s 2004 design.
- Samsung marketed several Galaxy Tab models (including the 10.1, 8.9, and 7.7). Compared with Apple’s RCD, Samsung’s tablets displayed prominent Samsung branding and used a multi-textured, two-tone rear finish rather than a uniformly plain back.
- Samsung sued in the Patents Court (High Court) seeking a declaration that its Galaxy Tab designs did not infringe Apple’s RCD; Apple counterclaimed for infringement.
- The Patents Court found non-infringement and granted Samsung a declaration. In separate relief proceedings, the court also ordered Apple to publicize the UK non-infringement outcome in specified ways to correct market confusion caused by Apple’s public allegations.
- Apple appealed to the Court of Appeal on both the infringement outcome and the form of the publicity order.

## Issues

1. Whether the Patents Court erred in applying the Community design infringement test—i.e., whether Samsung’s tablets produced the same overall impression on the informed user as Apple’s RCD, considering the prior design corpus and the designer’s degree of freedom.
2. Whether the court could order corrective publicity following a declaration of non-infringement, and if so, whether the particular notice requirements (wording, placement, and duration) were justified and proportionate.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed Apple’s appeal on infringement and affirmed the declaration that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab tablets did not infringe Apple’s RCD.
- The court held that the trial judge took the correct approach to “overall impression” and was entitled to find that the Galaxy Tabs’ visible differences—especially departures from Apple’s ornament-free simplicity—meant a different overall impression on the informed user.
- The Court of Appeal accepted that a corrective publicity order could be made to address commercial uncertainty created by widely publicized infringement allegations.
- The court varied the publicity order’s terms so the notice would be factual and proportionate in wording, placement, and duration, rather than operating as a penalty.

## Legal Principles

- Community design infringement depends on whether the accused product produces the same overall impression on the informed user, assessed against the relevant prior design corpus and the designer’s freedom.
- Where key elements of a registered design lie in extreme simplicity or the absence of ornamentation, visible ornamentation and surface detailing on the accused product may matter to the overall impression and may help distinguish it.
- Shared, function-driven features of tablets (rectangular form, flat screen) may limit the effective scope of protection; the comparison focuses on those visual aspects left open to design choice.
- An evaluative finding on overall impression is primarily for the trial judge; an appellate court will not re-try the visual assessment absent legal error or an unreasonable evaluative conclusion.
- Corrective publicity can be an available remedial measure in design litigation where public allegations have created market confusion, but any order must be accurate, neutral, and proportionate in content and dissemination.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld the Patents Court’s conclusion that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab tablets did not infringe Apple’s 2004 Registered Community Design because they created a different overall impression on the informed user, including due to visible departures from Apple’s ornament-free minimalist design, and it maintained (but modified) a corrective publicity order requiring Apple to publish a neutral notice of the UK non-infringement outcome.


Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd. v. Apple Inc., [2012] EWCA Civ. 1339 (2012)