In this case, Bodum started an action against Trudeau for infringement of two Industrial Designs (IDs) relating to double wall glasses. Bodum also claimed violations of paragraph 7(b) of the Trade-Marks Act, and raised allegations of unfair competition; however withdrew this argument during trial. Trudeau denied the allegations and counterclaimed for invalidity of the IDs.
The parties agreed that industrial designs protect visual features but not utilitarian function. In this case, the space between the double walls was admitted to have utilitarian function. However, it is the configuration of the double wall glasses that is relevant. The Court held that industrial designs and prior art must be compared by ignoring the construction, colour and material processes. It is the ornamentation, pattern, design, shape and configuration that matters. The Court held that infringement must be analyzed by the Court from the point of view of how the informed consumer would see things.
The Court held that there was no infringement in this case, finding that the Trudeau glasses have almost none of the features of the configuration of the IDs in question. The Court also held that the IDs were invalid. The Court held that, in order to be registrable, an industrial design must be substantially different from the prior art. A simple variation is not sufficient, as it would paralyze the market. In this case, the Court held that the IDs in question do not vary substantially from the prior art. Thus, they were not entitled to registration, do not satisfy the requirement of substantial originality and must be expunged from the register.