UK court upholds judgement: Samsung tablet does not infringe on Apple’s iPad designs because it’s ‘not as cool’; Apple forced to run ads saying Samsung did not copy iPad

“Apple has lost its appeal against a ruling that cleared rival Samsung of copying its registered designs for tablet computers, in a decision which could end the two firms’ legal dispute on the subject across Europe,” Stephen Eisenhammer reports for Reuters.

“Britain’s Court of Appeal on Thursday upheld the country’s High Court judgment that, despite some similarities, Samsung’s Galaxy tablet did not infringe Apple’s designs, in part because its products were ‘not as cool,'” Eisenhammer reports. “The U.S. company has been instructed to run advertisements saying Samsung did not copy its registered tablet designs, both on its website and in selected newspapers.”

Eisenhammer reports, “Apple can appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung didn’t copy iPad – and iPhone before that? Seriously? They knocked it off lock, stock and barrel!

Apple needs to immediately appeal this to the UK Supreme Court, here’s hoping they, at least, have working brains and eyeballs.

Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:

Samsung Galaxy and Galaxy Tab Trade Dress Infringement

By the way, here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:

Google Android before and after Apple iPhone


  1. Hey, MDN. Just shut the hell up. Apple lost everywhere excepted American soil. You don’t even realize how apple started just wrong? Now apple will get paid what they did. It was ridiculous. Shouldn’t sue anyone.

    1. “Hey, Edward. Just shut the hell up. Edward lost everywhere including American soil. You don’t even realize how Edward started just wrong? Now Edward will get paid what they did. It was ridiculous. Shouldn’t bitch anyone.”

      Edward, I like what you said. Just made some editorial changes to correct the thought. Left the really poor “engrish” as it was.
      Now its much better…. really.

    2. I agree with you, if they can abolish the whole patent system. According to you there is no need for patents. Why spend millions for R & D…..Just throw away the money!

  2. Not sure if England has a supreme court… But I agree with the past suggestions.. Follow the letter of the advert. Samsung did not “copy” apple cause it is just NOT AS COOL as Apple. Use play on words to show that the court says samsung is not cool and that is the ONLY reason given for samsung not copying Apple.

    Just a thought. Play to the English sense of dry humor and make the point.

  3. Run the ad using the Judges words:

    “(Samsung’s tablets) do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” the judge said in his July ruling. “They are not as cool.”

    1. They should do that and run the side by side pictures in the advertisement.

      For those in the US, the UK does have a Supreme Court but it’s not clear whether Apple can appeal to it. The Supreme Court generally only gets involved where there is a point of law which requires interpretation, which doesn’t seem to be the case here.

    2. “Run the ad using the Judges words:

      “(Samsung’s tablets) do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” the judge said in his July ruling. “They are not as cool.”

      That’s exactly what Apple should do if there ever forced to put anything on their website regarding this.

    1. There is massive ignorance being posted on this board. The English law that Apple sued under is different to what people here want it to be. As one of the judges explained:

      “It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple’s iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply 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.”

      [The judge] noted that Samsung’s decision to place 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 fact that the sides of the iPad’s design – which featured a “sharp edge” – were significantly different from those of the Galaxy Tabs.

      In addition, he wrote that Samsung’s designs were “altogether busier” with a more varied use of colour on the devices’ rear and their inclusion of a thicker section to house a camera.

      Given this explanation of the English law relevant to this case, it’s no surprise that Apple lost. Maybe Apple sued under the wrong law?

      1. I do believe Apple has had some poor legal advice over the last couple of years. JB is quite correct in his understanding of UK law with respect to registered design. It has been commented elsewhere that the UK courts are notorious with respect to IP law, making the UK one of the most difficult places to litigate over IP.
        Apple’s lawyers should have know this, they didn’t it seems and Apple has to pay the price.
        Moto, on the other hand, have lawyers who know that German courts interpret IP law differently to other countries, hence their aggressive tactics against MS and Apple over there.

  4. Why not making it like I’m a Mac, I’m a PC-campaign.

    – I am an iPad.
    – I am a Samsung pad.
    – Did you copy me, Samsung?
    – No, as you can see I am not as cool as you are.

    That would be a lot of fun.

  5. Lawyers r almost all liberal! Thank liberals for this ridiculous, anti-capitalistic decision that makes the copycat Samsung the victim! World is coming apart one lawyer at a time! Unbelievable!

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.