Australian Design Law in 2025: Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino [2025] FCA 871
- stevedavey4
- 15 hours ago
- 5 min read
Australian Design Law in 2025: What Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino [2025] FCA 871 Tells Us
Australian design law continues to evolve. The Federal Court's 2025 decision in Watson Webb Pty Ltd v Comino [2025] FCA 871, handed down on 30 July 2025, is the latest in a line of design infringement cases that apply the framework of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth) to real commercial disputes. For business owners, in-house counsel, and IP practitioners, every new Federal Court design decision is worth watching — it shapes how the legislation is applied in practice and what rights holders can realistically expect when they enforce their registered designs.
Background: Registered Design Protection and the Dispute
Watson Webb Pty Ltd is a registered design holder that brought proceedings in the Federal Court alleging that the defendant, Comino, infringed its registered design rights. As a 2025 decision, Watson Webb v Comino is one of the more recent additions to the body of Federal Court design case law. Practitioners and rights holders with a direct interest in the specific facts and findings of the decision should refer to the judgment itself, which is available on the Federal Court's website and through AustLII.
What the case represents — and what makes it worth discussing — is the continuing vitality of registered design rights as an enforcement tool in the Australian market, and the way in which the courts continue to apply the core legal framework established by the Designs Act 2003.
The Legal Framework Applied
What a Registered Design Protects
A registered design under the Designs Act 2003 protects the visual features of a product — its shape, configuration, pattern, and ornamentation — as applied to a product. It does not protect function. It does not protect ideas. It protects what a product looks like.
This is an important distinction. A business that develops a product with a distinctive visual appearance — whether it is furniture, consumer goods, packaging, tools, or technology hardware — can register that appearance as a design and obtain enforceable exclusive rights in it. A competitor who makes a product that looks substantially the same infringes those rights, even if the function of the product is identical or the components are different.
The Infringement Test: Substantially Similar in Overall Impression
Section 71 of the Designs Act 2003 provides the test for infringement: a person infringes a registered design if they make, sell, offer to sell, import, or use for trade a product that embodies a design that is substantially similar in overall impression to the registered design.
The comparison is not made feature by feature. It is a holistic assessment of the overall visual impression that each design creates. Minor differences in individual elements do not automatically take a product outside the scope of an infringement claim. The court asks: would the informed user, looking at both designs, consider them substantially similar in their overall appearance?
The Informed User
The "informed user" standard, first authoritatively articulated in Keller v LED Technologies Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 55, continues to govern the infringement assessment. The informed user is not the average consumer unfamiliar with the product category. Nor are they a design expert applying forensic scrutiny to every dimension. They are a person who is familiar with the product, aware of the prior art in the field, and capable of appreciating design differences — but who pays "close but not unduly analytical" attention.
This standard continues to be applied in every design infringement case that comes before Australian courts, including decisions in 2025. The identity of the informed user, and what they would notice when comparing designs, is consistently a central issue in contested infringement proceedings.
Validity: New and Distinctive
Before infringement is assessed, the registered design must be valid. A design is valid if it is new — not publicly disclosed before the priority date — and distinctive — sufficiently different from the prior art base that the informed user would consider the designs to be distinctly different, not just marginally different.
In design infringement litigation, defendants routinely cross-claim that the registered design is invalid. This is the central battleground in many cases. Rights holders who registered their designs without a thorough prior art review, or who registered designs that were not genuinely original at the date of filing, face real risk of having their registrations invalidated when they try to enforce them.
Why 2025 Design Decisions Matter
Every Federal Court decision on design infringement adds to the practical understanding of how the Designs Act 2003 operates. The Watson Webb v Comino decision, as a 2025 case, is particularly current. It reflects the court's most up-to-date application of the informed user test, the validity requirements, and the remedies available to a successful plaintiff.
The remedies available under the Designs Act 2003 include injunctions preventing further infringement, damages (or an account of the infringer's profits, at the plaintiff's election), and additional damages under section 75 where the infringement is flagrant. Section 75 additional damages are a significant deterrent — they allow the court to go beyond mere compensatory relief where an infringer has acted egregiously or in deliberate disregard of the rights holder's position.
Directors and officers of companies that infringe registered designs can also be held personally liable where they directed, procured, or authorised the infringing conduct. This is a principle consistently applied by Australian courts and represents a significant personal risk for those who run businesses that copy competitors' designs.
Lessons From the Evolving Case Law
The body of Australian design infringement case law — from Keller v LED Technologies in 2010 through to decisions like Watson Webb v Comino in 2025 — reflects a consistent set of principles that rights holders and potential defendants alike need to understand.
For rights holders, the key lessons are: register early, register clearly, and understand the prior art base before you try to enforce. A design registration is only as strong as its validity, and that validity will be tested the moment you bring infringement proceedings.
For businesses that develop products with distinctive visual features, design registration is an accessible and relatively cost-effective form of IP protection. A registered design gives you a property right in the appearance of your product — one that is enforceable in the Federal Court, one that deters copying, and one that can generate real commercial value when licensed or assigned.
Strategic Takeaways
Review 2025 decisions as they emerge. The Federal Court's design case law continues to develop. Watson Webb v Comino [2025] FCA 871 is a current decision that practitioners should read directly for its specific application of the infringement and validity frameworks.
Register designs at the earliest opportunity. The priority date of your design registration determines what prior art the design is assessed against. Filing early locks in the earliest possible priority date and provides the broadest protection.
Ensure representations are clear and complete. The scope of your registered design is defined by its representations. Ambiguous or incomplete representations create gaps that defendants will exploit.
Understand the informed user test before you enforce. Before bringing infringement proceedings, assess whether the informed user — someone familiar with your product category and aware of the prior art — would consider the allegedly infringing product substantially similar in overall impression to your registered design. If the answer is unclear, take legal advice before committing to litigation.
Stack your IP rights. Registered designs work best in combination with trade marks, copyright, and where applicable, patents or innovation patents. A competitor who copies your product may infringe multiple rights simultaneously.
Stay Current on Australian Design Law
Design law is a dynamic area of IP practice. New Federal Court decisions continue to refine how the Designs Act 2003 is applied in practice, and the landscape for rights holders continues to evolve. If you hold registered designs, are considering registering a design, or are facing a design infringement claim, getting current, specialist advice is essential.
Comments