COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 2 November 1988)

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 209 and 210 en bloc. With the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 239 and 248. These amendments make general provision for kits; that is to say, an article in an unassembled kit form such as the kit-form furniture which is widely sold today. The effect is that design rights apply to kits in exactly the same way as to the assembled article.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me what is the difference between a part in a kit and a part supplied on a must-fit or must-match basis?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, as I have said, the effect of the amendments is to treat kits in exactly the same way as complete articles in all respects throughout Parts III and IV of the Bill so that, for example, design right subsists in the design of the kit in just the same way as it subsists in the assembled article. In that respect, the must-fit and must-match exceptions will apply to the kit in just the same way as they apply to the assembled article. For example, the must-fit exception will apply to the kit as a whole just as if it were assembled.
332 The only relevant questions concern any other articles with which the kit, as a whole, needs to fit. This of course is a quite separate question from the way in which the exception will apply to an individual component of the kit, as is made clear in subsection (2) of the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 239. Anyone who wishes to supply spare parts for articles sold in kit form will be in exactly the same position as someone supplying parts for ready-made articles.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, how am I to know whether a part which I am buying is part of a kit of parts or a part supplied on a must-fit must-match basis?

§ Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it would be clearly marked as being a spare part for a kit rather than part of a kit.