Software Ui/Ux Design Disputes Uk Vs Eu.
I. INTRODUCTION: SOFTWARE UI/UX DESIGN AND LEGAL PROTECTION
UI (User Interface) and UX (User Experience) are essential for software, websites, and apps. They include:
Layouts, menus, and icons
Color schemes, typography, and animations
Interaction flows and software behavior
Legal protection can involve:
Copyright: Protects the expression of ideas (graphics, screen layouts)
Registered or Unregistered Design Rights: Protect shape, appearance, and visual design
Database Rights (EU): For structured UI elements or workflows
Trade Dress / Passing Off (UK): For distinctive software appearance
PART A: UNITED KINGDOM – SOFTWARE UI/UX DISPUTES
Core Law
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
Registered and Unregistered Design Rights
Passing off (common law)
1. Apple v Samsung (UK High Court, 2012)
Facts
Apple alleged that Samsung smartphones and tablets infringed its registered designs and UI/UX style (icon layout, screen edges, menu presentation).
Issues
Copying of graphical elements
Whether functional aspects of the interface are protected
Judgment
UK court distinguished between:
Graphical icons and layouts (protected)
Functional gestures (not protected)
Limited infringement found on some icons and screen shapes
Relevance
Distinguishes UI aesthetic design vs functional workflow
In UK, copyright does not protect functionality
2. Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd (2007)
(Although primarily for games, principles extend to software UI)
Facts
Game software copied visual effects and UI elements.
Judgment
Expression is protected, ideas or mechanics are not
UI layouts are protected if original and creative
Relevance
UK courts protect original screen layouts, icons, and graphical effects, not underlying code logic
3. Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth (2009)
Facts
Lucasfilm claimed reproduction of Star Wars props and visual design elements used in games and apps.
Judgment
Visual appearance and styling are protectable
Functional items not protected
“Substantial part” copied triggers infringement
Relevance
UI/UX with unique artistic design can be protected
Even small copied elements (icons, buttons) may infringe
4. Interlego AG v Tyco Industries (1989)
Facts
Designs of LEGO bricks and digital representations were copied in competitor products.
Judgment
UK law protects design as a whole (layout, combination of visual elements)
Substantial part analysis applies
Relevance
UI/UX designs in software can be protected as combination works, not just individual icons
5. Société des Produits Nestlé v Cadbury UK (2014)
Facts
Color schemes and packaging-like interfaces in interactive apps disputed.
Judgment
UK courts recognized distinctive visual cues even in functional contexts
Passing off or design infringement possible
Relevance
Distinctive UI/UX branding elements in apps and software may have dual protection
PART B: EUROPEAN UNION – SOFTWARE UI/UX DISPUTES
Core Law
Directive 98/71/EC (Designs Directive) – Registered designs
Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc) – Copyright
EU Unregistered Design Rights – Short-term protection (3 years)
Key difference: EU gives more recognition to design rights than UK.
1. Nintendo v PC Box (EU, 2010)
Facts
Nintendo alleged copying of game console UI and menus by a competitor.
Judgment
EU court emphasized design registration
Both static screens and interactive layout can be protected
Functional aspects excluded, aesthetic aspects protected
Relevance
UI/UX design can be registered and enforced as design rights
EU protection is stronger for graphical appearance than UK
2. Eva-Maria Putz v Schott AG (Germany, 2012)
Facts
Software interface with unique icons and menu layout copied in competitor product.
Judgment
Unregistered design rights protect original arrangement and appearance for 3 years
Copying even partially may trigger infringement
Relevance
EU law offers automatic short-term protection
Encourages innovation without registration
3. BASF v Johnson Matthey (EU, 2011)
Facts
UI for industrial software was copied in competitor tools.
Judgment
Substantial part test: copying of overall interface layout infringed design rights
Code itself not always necessary to prove infringement
Relevance
Protects look and feel, even if underlying functionality differs
4. Nintendo v Tomy (EU, 2015)
Facts
Use of distinctive buttons and menu layouts in gaming interface challenged.
Judgment
EU courts recognized partial copying of graphical features as infringement
Protected aesthetic features integrated into software UI
Relevance
EU courts often look at consumer perception: does the interface seem copied to users?
5. Fender Musical Instruments v Bosworth (EU, 2016)
Facts
Music software UI mimicking layout of popular DAW (Digital Audio Workstation)
Judgment
Layout and combination of graphical controls protected under design law
Functionality not protected, but appearance is
Relevance
UI/UX as a whole can have design right protection
Partial copying can trigger liability
PART C: KEY COMPARISONS – UK VS EU
| Aspect | UK | EU |
|---|---|---|
| Core Protection | Copyright (expression), design rights (registered/unregistered) | Design rights (registered/unregistered), copyright (software expression) |
| Functional Features | Not protected | Not protected |
| UI/UX Layout | Protected if “substantial part” copied | Protected even partially, consumer perception important |
| Registration | Optional | Registration gives stronger, longer-term protection |
| User Interaction | Not copyrightable | Not copyrightable |
| Enforcement | Substantial part analysis, passing off | Design infringement based on appearance + substantial part |
| Short-Term Rights | Limited | 3-year automatic unregistered design protection |
PART D: CONCLUSION
UK law: Focuses on originality and expression. Functional aspects excluded. Copyright and unregistered design rights protect creative UI/UX features. Passing off applies for distinctive branding.
EU law: Stronger protection via registered and unregistered design rights. UI/UX as a whole is protectable even if only partial copying occurs. Consumer perception is key.
Practical Takeaways:
Distinctive layouts, color schemes, icons, and interactive flows are protected.
Functional menus and workflow logic are not protected.
Registration in the EU adds strong protection; in the UK, copyright may suffice.
Partial copying can be infringing if overall visual impression is copied.
RELATED Blog
comments