|
''Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd''〔() A.C. 728, () F.S.R. 817.〕 is a 1997 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (1) re-affirming the principle of UK copyright law that the copying of functional three-dimensional objects is an infringing reproduction of the drawings of the objects, and (2) limiting the doctrine of non-derogation from grants as to chattels to "the case in which the unfairness to the customer and the anticompetitive nature of the monopoly is as plain and obvious as it appeared to the House of Lords in the ''British Leyland'' case." ==Background== The plaintiff, a manufacturer of photocopiers and laser printers, incorporated the parts which might need replacing during the lifetime of a machine and a supply of toner in a disposable cartridge, which could be inserted in the machine by its owner when the toner had to be renewed. The plaintiff was therefore entitled, under ''LB (Plastics) Ltd. v. Swish Products Ltd.'', to artistic copyright in the drawings from which of the parts for the cartridge had been made, and by the same token the plaintiff had the exclusive right to reproduce the drawings in any material form, such as replacement toner cartridges. The aftermarket in cartridges contributed significantly to the plaintiff’s profits, and the initial cost of one of its machines was much lower than the aggregate cost of cartridges used during the life of the machine. In Hong Kong refillers of used cartridges had 40% of the cartridge market. The defendant manufactured new cartridges in Hong Kong for sale there and for export in competition with the plaintiff’s cartridges. In an action by the plaintiff in the High Court of Hong Kong the judge granted an injunction against the defendant, holding that by manufacturing cartridge parts by reverse engineering from the plaintiff’s cartridge parts the defendant had indirectly reproduced in three-dimensional form the plaintiff’s drawings from which those parts had been made, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in those drawings. The High Court also held that the "spare parts exception" of the ''British Leyland'' case did not entitle the defendant to do so. The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong, by a majority, allowed the defendant’s appeal holding that the manufacture of cartridges ''did'' fall within that exception. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|