Oxbridge Notes uses cookies for login, tax evidence, digital piracy prevention, business intelligence, and advertising purposes, as explained in our privacy policy.

Technical settings

Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

LA Gear Inc v Hi-Tec Sports plc

[1992] FSR 121

Case summary last updated at 29/01/2020 17:42 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case LA Gear Inc v Hi-Tec Sports plc

C made a shoe. D began to sell a prototype shoe which C alleged was an infringing copy of C’s shoe. C sent letter to D enclosing a picture of C’s shoe, asking D to refrain from selling shoe. D refused and advertised its shoes for sale; C sued for secondary liability. Held:
 
·       D’s shoe was an infringing copy of C’s shoe.
·       Moreover, as D had received design drawings, was obvious D had reason to believe shoe it was selling was breach of copyright.
·       Thus D was liable for dealing in infringing copies.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Intellectual Property Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious academic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Intellectual Property Law Notes

Intellectual Property Law Notes >>