1D Electronics 2012-2014

Product Information

Are these two differences enough to overcome the similarity at the front and the similarity in overall shape? Apple submitted that the front face and overall shape are what matters because the informed user will principally spend his time looking at the front face and holding the object in his hand. I do not regard the overall shape as very significant but there is a very obvious visual similarity at the front. In my judgment the key to this case is the strength or significance of that similarity. As I have said the significance of the near identity of the front surfaces of these products is reduced to a degree by the existence of similar fronts in the design corpus. The question is – to what degree? ii)(b) Occurrence in the design corpus• There are designs in the design corpus with feature (ii) such as Showbox (10), Bloomberg 1, Bloomberg 2, Ozolins, and Flatron. Not only do they fall within the description as a matter of words, to my eye Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins and Flatron all look very similar to the Apple design as far as this feature is concerned. As regards ornamentation, the Flatron has a little LG logo at the bottom: As to the first element, Mr Sherman's view was that display devices are historically rectangular and biaxially symmetrical. There is no doubt that display screens are rectangular for functional reasons, but although the screen itself is strictly rectangular in shape, designers have freedom as regards the shape of the device itself. Mr Ball illustrated this point with a number of examples. I will use one, the Viewsonic Airpanel V150, February 2003: The informed user• The designs are assessed from the perspective of the informed user. The identity and attributes of the informed user have been discussed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in PepsiCo v Grupo Promer(C-281/10P) [2012] FSR 5 at paragraphs 53 to 59 and also in Grupo Promer v OHIM [2010] ECDR 7, (in the General Court from which PepsiCo was an appeal) and in Shenzhen Taiden v OHIM, case T-153/08, BAILII: [2010] EUECJ T-153/08 , 22 June 2010. Goonan, T. G. (2011) ‘Rare Earth Elements — End Use and Recyclability’, Reston, Virginia: U.S. Department of the Interior & U.S. Geological Survey.

Hatakeyama, K. (2015) ‘Rare Earths and Japan: traditional vulnerability reconsidered’, in R. Kiggins (ed.), The Political Economy of Rare Earth Elements. Palgrave MacMillan. The trend makes sense for social networks: With 800 million people already on Facebook, its growth is bound to slow. But if sharing becomes automatic, the volume of content on Facebook will grow at an accelerated pace. There’s a big problem, however: Users may be “creeped out” by all this automated sharing of their Web activity and grow suspicious of the apps using it. Figure 5 is clearly intended to represent a fair reflection of what the Ozolins screen would look like in practice, as follows:

A Samsung Electronics spokeswoman said this week it had not received a detailed offer from Olympus regarding a tie-up. Hong, F. (2006) ‘Rare Earth: Production, Trade and Demand’, paper presented at the Proceedings of 19th International Workshop on Rare Earth Permanent Magnets & Their Applications. Samsung submitted that the following summary characterises the informed user. I accept it and have added cross-references to the cases mentioned:

Wäger, P. A., Lang, D. J., Wittmer, D., Bleischwitz, R., & Hagelüken, C. (2012) ‘Towards a More Sustainable Use of Scarce Metals: A Review of Intervention Options along the Metals Life Cycle’, Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21 (4): 300–309. Wireless chipmaker Broadcom, which makes Bluetooth and other wireless chips for phones, tablets, routers and game consoles, has invested heavily in expanding its portfolio of processors for phones that need more processing power, co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Henry Samueli said at the Consumer Electronics Show. TV Everywhere has been buzzed about since 2010, of course, and could be a dud – but the rise of tablet devices would seem to create increased demand for a “TV in your hands.”

This is a Regulation originating from the EU

Ozolins and the Bloombergs• Three notable items in Schedule A are Ozolins (item 50), Bloomberg 1 (item 43) and Bloomberg 2 (item 42). There may be a relationship between them but I will consider each one separately. ii) A flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, New York: North Point Press.

Nansai, K., Nakajima, K., Kagawa, S., Kondo, Y., Suh, S., Shigetomi, Y., & Oshita, Y. (2014) ‘Global Flows of Critical Metals Necessary for Low-Carbon Technologies: The Case of Neodymium, Cobalt, and Platinum’, Environmental Science & Technology. doi: 10.1021/es4033452. Design Corpus• Recital 14 indicates that the overall impression produced on the informed user by a design depends on the "existing design corpus" taking into consideration the nature of the product to which the design is applied, the industrial sector to which it belongs and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. The overall impression of the Apple design • Having gone through the various features individually it is necessary to pull it all together and consider the overall impression of the Apple design on an informed user.This dispute is being litigated between the parties in other countries. The validity case is before OHIM. In Germany the first instance court in Düsseldorf held that the Galaxy tablets infringed the design but on appeal the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal decided there was no infringement. However the German court did grant an injunction on the Samsung tablets on a different basis under German unfair competition law. In the Netherlands Apple lost at first instance and on appeal. Both the German and Dutch proceedings are preliminary proceedings. It was not disputed that Apple has the right to start full infringement proceedings in those countries and that the preliminary decisions are not binding. This action is the first substantive hearing in the Community of the issue of infringement. Clamadieu, J.-P. & Butstraen, E. (2010) ‘Les terres rares, des matières premières minérales stratégiques’, Responsabilité & Environnement, 58: 92–98. Mr Carr submitted that Mr Ball was not an impartial expert and in his evidence had set out to support Apple. Mr Carr took four points: