Clipsal Australia (Pty) Ltd v Trust Electrical Wholesalers

The appellants were the proprietor of, and exclusive licensee under, a registered aesthetic design (A96/0687) for electrical accessory plates with surrounds, registered under the Designs Act 195 of 1993. The respondents manufactured and sold electrical socket plates (Lear G‑2000 series single and double sockets) which fell within the same class of goods. The appellants alleged that these products infringed their registered design. In the High Court, the respondents defended the claim on the basis that the design was invalid because it was neither new nor original, and in any event that their products did not infringe. The High Court dismissed the application, finding the design not new or original and not infringed. Leave to appeal was granted.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order interdicting the respondents from infringing registered design A96/0687, directing surrender of infringing articles, ordering an enquiry into damages or a reasonable royalty under s 35(3)(d) of the Designs Act, authorising procedural directions if necessary, and directing the respondents to pay the appellants’ costs.

The case is a leading South African authority on the interpretation of novelty, originality, and infringement under the Designs Act 195 of 1993. It clarifies that mosaicing of prior art is impermissible in assessing novelty, explains the distinct meaning of originality under the current Act, and confirms that infringement depends on substantial similarity rather than minor differences. The judgment provides important guidance on assessing the scope of protection of registered aesthetic designs.