Patent decision
- BL number
- O/361/17
- Concerning rights in
- GB1314647.7
- Hearing Officer
- Dr J E Porter
- Decision date
- 31 July 2017
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Jethro Bennett
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 section 1(1)(b) and 1(2)
- Keywords
- Excluded fields (refused), Inventive step
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The invention concerns branded eyewear in the form of “shutter glasses” where, in place of lenses, there are strut members which extend horizontally across the left and right orbital frames. The eyewear has oversized wings (or arms) providing space for branding to be applied, which may be colours, logos, patterns or typefaces which represent or are associated with a particular brand, team, event, company, character or sports personality. Specific branding options are claimed, including branding the eyewear with a sports player name in a font which substantially mimics the player name font on a team strip.
The prior art shows unbranded shutter eyewear with oversized wings, as well as other various types of eyewear with differing branding and logos. The Hearing Officer considered that it would be apparent to the skilled person - a designer of advertising and promotional headwear - that some form of advertising or promotional branding or logo could be applied to the unbranded shutter eyewear just as it is applied to any other design of eyewear. The skilled person would also well understand that successful branding and promotional material needs to reflect and incorporate the colours, wording, logos and fonts associated with the brand, team, event or personality being promoted or advertised. The claimed invention lacked an inventive step.
On excluded matter, the Hearing Officer followed Aerotel and assessed the contribution made by the invention as being the application of certain specific branding, logos, wording, fonts and colours to shutter eyewear - in particular, the application of a player’s name in a font mimicking the player name font on a team strip. The contribution was therefore a number of design and branding choices, influenced by (amongst other things) commercial and sporting considerations. It was not technical in nature, and was excluded as being an aesthetic creation and, to the extent the branding, logo or other wording may be said to impart information, as being the presentation of information. The application was refused.
Full decision O/361/17 
107Kb
