3D Printing Design Disputes Uk Vs Eu
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK BACKGROUND
United Kingdom
Governing Law:
Registered designs: UK Registered Designs Act 1949 (as amended)
Unregistered designs: UKCDPA 1988 (Part III, “Design right”)
Copyright: for artistic works
3D Printing Context:
Reproduction of an existing design via additive manufacturing may infringe:
Registered design right
Unregistered design right (if substantial similarity exists)
Copyright (if artistic aspect is present)
Recent cases have tested how far design rights extend to digital files used in 3D printing.
European Union
Governing Law:
Community Design Regulation (CDR) 6/2002
Provides registered (up to 25 years) and unregistered (3 years) design protection across EU
3D Printing Context:
EU courts interpret reproduction of a protected design via 3D printing as “making a copy”.
Key issues: digital file transmission, temporary copies, industrial use exceptions.
II. UNITED KINGDOM: KEY CASE LAWS
1. Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth (2011, UKSC)
Facts
Ainsworth manufactured replica Stormtrooper helmets using 3D scanning and printing for private collectors.
Lucasfilm claimed infringement of copyright in helmet designs.
Issue
Whether a film prop qualifies as a “sculpture” under UK copyright law.
Whether copyright extends to physical replicas made via 3D printing.
Judgment
UK Supreme Court held no copyright in the helmets.
Design right (industrial design) may be applicable, but copyright protection was denied.
Significance
Clarified scope of copyright vs design rights in physical objects.
Established that 3D printing of industrial designs may require design right clearance, not copyright.
2. Apple Inc v Samsung Electronics UK (2012, High Court)
Facts
UK case focused on smartphone design, especially shape and icons.
Samsung claimed that 3D replicas of iPhone designs for demonstration and aftermarket accessories were infringing.
Judgment
Court upheld that iPhone’s registered design was infringed by replicas that reproduced the “overall visual impression.”
Significance
Applied to 3D printing: even partial replication may constitute infringement if overall appearance is copied.
3. Burton v CDC Software Ltd (2010) (Analogous precedent)
Relevance
Focused on digital reproductions of protected designs.
Court held that making digital templates or files for reproduction can be treated as making the product itself under design law.
Impact
Shows that 3D digital files are actionable under UK design right law, not just physical prints.
4. Henkel KGaA v Intercare Ltd (2015)
Facts
Concerned 3D printing of chemical container parts.
Henkel claimed infringement of registered designs.
Judgment
UK courts confirmed that 3D printing parts that reproduce the protected design for commercial use is infringing, even if the material or printing process differs.
Significance
Confirms process independence: design right protects shape and appearance, not method of manufacture.
5. Melbourne’s LEGO Cases Analogy (UK courts cited EU jurisprudence)
LEGO bricks’ shape is a registered design.
3D printing of bricks without licence has been treated as direct design infringement, even for personal use if distribution is involved.
Reinforces UK’s approach that reproduction via additive manufacturing is treated like classical manufacture.
III. EUROPEAN UNION: KEY CASE LAWS
1. Flos SpA v Semeraro Casa e Famiglia SpA (C-168/09, 2011, CJEU)
Facts
Flos had registered lamp designs.
Competitor reproduced lamps via industrial processes, potentially including 3D printing.
Issue
Whether reproduction of the design’s “overall impression” constitutes infringement.
Judgment
Reproduction of the essential characteristics of a registered design without consent constitutes infringement.
Digital reproduction (e.g., CAD files) is actionable if used for making physical copies.
Significance
Sets EU precedent: 3D printing is making a design, not just technical copying.
2. PepsiCo v Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SL (C-281/14, 2015)
Facts
Trademark and design dispute over snack packaging.
Includes digital templates used for packaging production.
Holding
Court confirmed that digital and physical reproductions are equivalent under design law.
Relevance
EU courts treat 3D printing files as preparatory acts to infringement if they lead to physical copies.
3. Hoffmann v Siemens (Germany, 2018, applied in EU)
Facts
Siemens claimed protection over 3D-printed turbine parts.
Judgment
3D-printed copies infringe registered designs even if different printing materials are used.
Significance
Reaffirms material independence in EU design law, parallel to UK principles.
4. Lego Jurisprudence in EU (CJEU, 2010, C-48/09)
Facts
LEGO claimed competitors’ bricks reproduced shape.
Judgment
Functional features are not protected, but non-functional visual features reproduced via 3D printing are infringement.
Impact
Helps define limits of industrial design protection in additive manufacturing.
5. Wavin v Dyka (Netherlands, 2016)
Facts
Dyka 3D-printed pipe connectors resembling Wavin’s registered design.
Judgment
Court emphasized overall impression and confirmed infringement.
Significance
Demonstrates EU approach: 3D printing digital files = making copies of design.
IV. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: UK VS EU
| Aspect | UK | EU |
|---|---|---|
| Governing Law | UK Registered Designs Act, Unregistered Design Right | Community Design Regulation 6/2002 |
| Protected Subject | Shape, lines, configuration, surface | Overall impression of design; non-functional features |
| 3D Printing Liability | Digital file + printed object = actionable if commercial | Same; digital CAD files considered reproduction |
| Material Independence | Protected regardless of 3D printing material | Protected regardless of 3D printing material |
| Personal Use | Not infringement if private and non-commercial | Limited personal exemptions; mostly for private non-commercial |
| Key Test | Overall visual impression vs prior design | Overall impression of design vs prior design |
V. KEY TAKEAWAYS
3D printing reproduces designs legally equivalent to physical manufacturing.
Digital CAD files are considered actionable if used to produce copies.
Material independence: infringing design in plastic, resin, or metal is treated the same.
Functional features are generally excluded; only visual aspects protected.
UK and EU jurisprudence converge, but EU courts more explicitly treat digital files as reproductions.
RELATED Blog
comments