What to do with your digital photos
Apple loses Samsung case appeal
A ruling that three Samsung Galaxy tablet computers did not infringe Apple's registered design has been upheld
Apple has lost a Court of Appeal battle in its legal action over Samsung's Galaxy tablet computer.
The American electronics giant argued that the Samsung Galaxy Tab was too similar to its own product.
But a judge at the High Court in London ruled in July that the Galaxy tablet was not "cool" enough to be confused with Apple's iPad.
Apple later challenged the finding at the Court of Appeal. But on Thursday the appeal was dismissed by Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob.
They upheld the decision of Judge Colin Birss QC that three Samsung Galaxy tablet computers did not infringe Apple's registered design. Judge Birss said earlier this year: "They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."
He said consumers were not likely to get the two tablet computers mixed up.
The judge said: "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy tablets is the following: from the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. The overall impression produced is different."
Apple had argued that the front face and overall shape were the most important factors because the informed user would spend the most time looking at the front and holding it.
Samsung said in a statement: "We welcome the court's judgment, which reaffirmed our position that our Galaxy Tab products do not infringe Apple's registered design right. Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice unduly limited."
The three Court of Appeal judges also rejected Apple's challenge against an order made by Judge Birss that it must publicise the fact that it had lost the case. Sir Robin said: "The grant of such an order is not to punish the party concerned for its behaviour. Nor is it to make it grovel - simply to lose face. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty."