Apple Lost Plea Against Samsung Design

Apple has lost its plea in opposition to a UK decision that Samsung had not infringed its design rights. A judge at the High Court in London had initially ruled in July that the look of Samsung's Galaxy Tab computers was not too alike to designs registered in relationship with the iPad. He said at the time that Samsung's devices were not as "cool" because they lacked Apple's "extreme simplicity".

Apple still wants to run ads saying Samsung had not infringed its rights. The US firm had formerly been ordered to put a notice to that result - with a link to the unique judgement - on its website and put other commercials in the Daily Mail, Financial Times, T3 Magazine and other publications to "correct the damaging impression" that Samsung was a copycat. The petition judges certain not to upset the decision on the beginning that a related Apple design-rights battle in the German courts risked causing uncertainty in consumers' minds.

"The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth," they said. "Nothing short of that will be sure to do the job completely." Nevertheless, they added that the progress need not "clutter" Apple's homepage as it would only have to add a link entitled "Samsung/Apple judgement" for a one-month period. A spokeswoman for Samsung said it welcomed the newest ruling.

"We maintain to believe that Apple was not the first to propose a tablet with a rectangular form and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple's registered design quality can be found in numerous examples of prior art.

"Should Apple prolong to make unnecessary legal claims in other countries based on such common designs, originality in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited." Apple refused to state. It can still demand to the UK Supreme Court, otherwise the ruling applies across the European Union.

Apple Registered Design

Three judges were drawn in the Court of Appeal re-examine of the case. Apple had reasserted its state saying that the front face and overall shape of the tablets was the most important factor - rather than the overall design - because users would expend mainly of their time looking at a tablet's screen and holding it.

One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling. "Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will evade mystification to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not entail any subject of whether there was copying: the issue is basically whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law." "So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."

Sir Robin noted that Samsung's conclusion to put its logo on the front of its devices distinguished them from Apple's registered design which said there should be "no ornamentation". He also highlighted the reality that the sides of the iPad's design - which featured a "sharp edge" - were extensively dissimilar from those of the Galaxy Tabs.

In addition, Sir Robin wrote that Samsung's designs were "altogether busier" with a more diverse use of colour on the devices' rear and their enclosure of a thicker division to house a camera.

International lawsuits

Apple has now lost a sequence of lawsuits next to Samsung based on the design of their tablets. These comprise cases in the Netherlands, Australia and US - even though sometimes winning provisional sales bans. Though, the California-based company has been more winning with other claims.

Most notably a US jury proposed Samsung have to pay Apple a $1.05bn (£650m) fine for infringing numerous software rights, and the look and feel of the iPhone. Samsung is appealing the verdict.