"The trial judge did not identify a particular class of persons as constituting the informed user, and the informed user may be taken to include the wholesaler who buys for the purpose of on-selling the lights, the person who fits the lights and the ultimate consumer who uses the vehicles to which the lights are fitted. I did not understand the appellant to submit that the trial judge had erred in his identification of the informed user. The difference in the back of the lights is a significantly different visual feature.  It seems to me that in terms of infringement, one of the most significant matters is that the registered designs appeared in a crowded field of prior art. As the trial judge noted, many of the features of similarity between the registered designs and the respondents’ lights were features that were common in the prior art. Even if less weight is placed on the difference in the underside of the base it is still a relevant visual feature and, with the other features identified by the trial judge, leads me to conclude that the trial judge did not err in deciding that the design embodied in the respondents’ lights was not substantially similar in overall impression to the registered designs."

"They [the design and the alleged infringement] look similar because they both have the same front screen. It stands out. However to the informed user (which at that stage I was not) these screens do not stand out to anything like the same extent. The front view of the Apple design takes its place amongst its kindred prior art. There is a clear family resemblance between the front of the Apple design and other members of that family (Flatron, Bloomberg 1 and 2, Ozolins, Showbox, Wacom). They are not identical to each other but they form a family. There are differences all over these products but the biggest differences between these various family members are at the back and sides.  The user who is particularly observant and is informed about the design corpus reacts to the Apple design by recognising the front view as one of a familiar type. From the front both the Apple design and the Samsung tablets look like members of the same, pre-existing family. As a result, the significance of that similarity overall is much reduced and the informed user's attention to the differences at the back and sides will be enhanced considerably." 

"... when the conference unit is in use, the speaker is raised in order to be able to fulfil its function. Consequently, the decoration at issue is on the back of the device and therefore outside the user’s immediate field of vision, which means that it will not have any major impact on the user’s perception. ...It should also be observed that, contrary to what the applicant claims, taking into account the reduced visibility of the lid of the speaker is not contrary to the rule that the overall impression produced by the contested design on the informed user should be assessed. That impression must necessarily be determined also in the light of the manner in which the product at issue is used, in particular on the basis of the handling to which it is normally subject on that occasion."