Court of Cassation of Egypt [2015]: Case No. 4583 of Judicial Year 84
This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 2: Emerging Issues in Industrial Designs
Court of Cassation of Egypt [2015]: Case No. 4583 of Judicial Year 84
Date of judgment: June 25, 2015
Issuing authority: Court of Cassation
Level of the issuing authority: Final Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �br> Subject matter: Industrial Designs; Enforcement of IP and Related Laws
Plaintiff: The Egyptian Company for Fiber and Plastic
Defendant: Aqua Bora Company
Keywords: Industrial designs, Lack of novelty, Res judicata, Claim preclusion
Basic facts: The plaintiff company produces plastic containers and is the registered owner of the following industrial designs:
The case arose from an infringement action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant company. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had duplicated its industrial design in a 19-liter bottle (image 2, above), which the plaintiff had already registered in its name at the Trademark and Industrial Designs Office.
The plaintiff brought a civil action claiming that, as an imitation of its own design, the defendant’s unregistered design infringed its intellectual property rights.
An expert report concluded that the defendant’s application to register its industrial design should not be granted, because the design lacked innovation and novelty and was similar to the plaintiff’s industrial design.
The plaintiff's claims included an undetermined monetary motion for the prohibition of the sale or importation of its duplicated products. Accordingly, the pecuniary (monetary) jurisdiction for this case resided with the Economic Court of Appeal.
The Economic Court of Appeal dismissed the case based on a previous judgment of acquittal in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, which related to the duplication of the plaintiff's industrial design. In dismissing the case, the Economic Court of Appeal cited application of the rule “le criminel tient le civil en l'état”, i.e., res judicata (claim preclusion) in criminal matters over civil matters.
Held: The Court of Cassation overturned the verdict of the Economic Court of Appeal and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant was banned from imitating or importing the plaintiff’s registered design.
Relevant holdings in relation to emerging issues in industrial designs: The Court of Cassation found that the rule of “res judicata in criminal matters over civil matters” did not apply in this case, because the verdict of the Economic Court of Appeal did not deliberate on the similarities and differences between the two industrial designs.
The decision of the Court of Cassation relied on the aforementioned expert report, which concluded that the plaintiff’s industrial design was registered and protected for 10 years. In contrast, the defendant’s industrial design was denied registration, as it lacked novelty and was similar to the plaintiff’s design. The Court of Cassation emphasized that, in accordance with international treaties, the protection of industrial designs is an obligation of the legislator.
The Court of Cassation concluded its decision by granting the plaintiff the right to prevent others from manufacturing, selling, or importing its protected industrial design.
Relevant legislation:
Law No. 82 of 2002 on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, Articles 119, 120, 122, 126, 127, 133 and 134