The plaintiff,
Interlego AG, sued the defendant,
Tyco Industries, for copyright infringement of its Lego bricks. However, it had previously registered its design. Under section 10 of the
Copyright Act 1956, the right to protection as a
registered design and copyright were not cumulative rights. The copyright was also a stronger right than the right to protection as a registered design. It had a longer duration. Thus the plaintiff also moved for the court to determine that its bricks did not qualify for design protection under section 10 of the Copyright Act, so that they could qualify for copyright protection. To do so, the court had to apply a test to determine whether the bricks comprised a degree of aesthetic appeal, above the purely functional elements of their design, which would cause them to qualify to be registered designs. To extend protection under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff argued that it had made revisions to its design drawings, and that as such they comprised original artistic works. The Copyright Act gave extensive protection to such drawings, including defining the making of an object from such a drawing an infringement of copyright, or that copying an object directly, without reference to its design drawings, constituted infringement of the copyright in the drawings. == Judgement ==