Dvaron Import-Export sell a baby rocker. The products were manufactured and imported from China. Fisher Price Inc. and Mattel Inc. sued claiming copyright infringement, passing off, trademark infringement and Unjust Enrichment. They alleged that their intellectual property was infringed by the product, it’s upholstery and instruction manual which they claimed were accurately copied. Both Dvaron Import-Export and directors Aharon Stein and David Ben Shushan were sued.
The Nazareth District Court threw out the charges noting that there was no patent or design registration and that the defendants had not infringed any trademark registered by Fisher Price or Mattel. Claims for reputation and confusing the public as required for a finding of “passing off” were also rejected.
The Court ruled that copying products per se. where there are no registered rights, does not, in and of itself, create grounds for an injunction. Each case has to be judged on its merits. There is no copyright in the design of functional articles, including their form, although sometimes articles includes artistic elements that are protectable. Copyright does not apply to rocking chairs or to their upholstery which should be protected by a design registration.
Copyright does cover instruction manuals however, as these are literary creations. However, the defends are not responsible for the contents of the instruction manual infringing the copyright of Mattel or Fisher Price as they could not know that Mattel or Fisher Price had copyright in this, and they are thus innocent infringers. The Chinese manufacturer had indeed reproduced Fisher Price illustrations but one would not generally notice this or Fisher Price logos in the images, and purchasers would only see the instruction manual after purchase.
As to Unjust Enrichment, in 5768/94 A.Sh.I.R. the Supreme court found that applying this doctrine where there is no infringement of registered IP rights requires an additional element of bad faith which, in the present instance is not found
Fisher Price Inc. and Mattel Inc. could not show a reputation in the product. The mere copying is not in and of itself an additional element of bad faith and the charges were rejected.
As the charges were rejected, the issue of personal liability of the directors was moot.
Costs of 30,000 Shekels were awarded against Fisher Price Inc. and Mattel Inc. As to goods seized under an Anton Pillar injunction by Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court, Judge Ben Hamu referred the parties back to that court to rule on the issue.
T.A. 39534-02-12 Fisher Price et al vs. Dvarron et al., Judge Yosef Ben Hamu, 8 January 2015.