Maglite Instruments won a copyright victory over IKEA in Sweden's Supreme Court, in a case which has been running for a decade, according to the International Law Office report by Håkan Borgenhäll and Lulu Li of Advokatfirman Lindahl. The result is that their mini Maglite(TM) torch, marketed in 1980, will now be protected for life+70 years as a work of applied art.

Is this perhaps a little generous? Should the Supreme Court treat themselves to a reading of the late Sir Hugh Laddie's grouchily brilliant 1995 Stephen Stewart lecture, "Copyright, Over-Strength, Over-Regulated, Over-Rated," 18 E.I.PR. 253 (1996)? Or is this moderate by comparison with the perpetual trade mark protection Maglite have been granted in Japan and elsewhere?

Perhaps there is a gleam of sense in the Swedish judgment - it appears that they noted the relatively low level of originality, and the limited design freedom, and adopted an approach closely resembling that of the Community design regime - limited design freedom lowers the creativity required for protection, whilst shrinking the scope of the protection granted. We can perhaps live with life+70 years (approximately thirty times the protection available via unregistered Community designs, and at least thrice that available to registered designs) if the quid pro quo is narrow infringement rights.