[18th July 2012] [Apple] shall at its own expense (a) post in a font size no smaller than Arial 11pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this order on the homepage of its UK website … as specified in Schedule 1 to this Order, together with a hyperlink to the Judgment of HHJ Birss QC dated 9th July 2012, said notice and hyperlink to remain displayed on [Apple’s] websites for a period of six months from the date of this order or until further order of the Court (b) publish in a font size no smaller than Arial 14pt the notice specified in Schedule 1 to this Order on a page earlier than page 6 in the Financial Times, the Daily Mail, The Guardian, Mobile Magazine and T3 magazine”. Apple’s objections?
Apple’s first objection was that as the design was from 2004 so it was easy for the informed user to know and expect advances in technology that would make tablets thinner. Hence, Apple suggested that the informed user would give little significance to the thickness of the registered design.
Second objection was the fact that Judge took account of the fact that the products from Samsung had their trademark Samsung on both sides. Apple said that the informed user would disregard the trademark as being a mere conventional addition to the registered design.
Who is informed user?
The designs are assessed from the perspective of the informed user. The identity and attributes of the informed user have been discussed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in PepsiCo v Grupo Promer (C-281/10P)  FSR 5 at paragraphs 53 to 59 and also in Grupo Promer v OHIM  ECDR 7.(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html)
Samsung provided own characteristics of the informed user which were accepted by the court. Samsung also admitted that there is only a limited degree of freedom for any designer who wants to design a tablet, particularly in relation to the front and back of the tablet computer.
The High Court found out different perspectives for all the features and Judge Jacobs gave following statement:
1. For display screen:
a. Judge stated that rectangular display is totally obvious and is solely determined by its functions. He also stated that there are some design constraints applicable to this feature but they also not account for the identity between the two rivals.
b. Next he stated that front face can be of somewhat different shape but the general shape (rectangular with rounded edges) is not significant.
c. As to item (ii) (transparent and flat over the entire face with no ornamentation), the Judge found that flatness was common and transparency essential. He held that there was a certain amount of design freedom (you could have a bezel or raised frame). Touch screen technology meant you did not need a raised frame to protect the screen. The degree of ornamentation of the front was a matter of designer choice.
2. For the thin rim:
a. The judge stated for this that as before, this aspect of the design is the product of tradeoffs by the designer which include functional considerations but also include aesthetics. The designer can choose to have a flush rim or a bezel, can choose the rim thickness and whether it is constant around the device. Within a general overall constraint, the designer has significant aesthetic design freedom.
3. For the border within the frame:
a. Judge found out that there was a degree of design constraint applicable here. The devices need some kind of border. The border need not be as described in feature (iv) but there were limits on design freedom.
Judge also stated that irrespective of the matter of design freedom, to his eye, feature (iv) would strike the informed user as a rather common feature.
As for the final decision, High Court decided in the favor of Samsung Electronics Corporation and asked Apple to publicize the order stating that Samsung didn’t infringed on their design. The decision came out with a statement from the Judge that Samsung’s devices were not as “cool” because they lacked Apple’s “extreme simplicity.