Honey, I modified the cooker! Court of Appeal explores trade mark exhaustion and copyright in design drawings
UK Innovations Group (UKIG) sold refurbished and electrified second-hand AGA cookers that had been converted using their “eControl” technology. At first instance in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), AGA Rangemaster Group (AGA) alleged trade mark and copyright infringement.
Trade mark infringement
At first instance, it was found that UKIG’s use of the identical sign “AGA” in its marketing and on its products amounted to trade mark infringement. However, UKIG argued the trade mark rights were exhausted by the authorised sale of the original cookers by AGA. This defence was rejected, as UKIG’s marketing created the impression of a commercial connection between itself and AGA (the trade mark proprietor), which fell within one of the recognised exceptions to exhaustion (the others being alteration of the goods’ condition and damage to reputation).
On appeal UKIG argued that the first instance judge’s factual findings were irrational. This was rejected, with The Court of Appeal holding it was reasonable to conclude (as the first instance judge did) that the composite of “AGA” and “eControl” could lead consumers to believe the conversions were authorised by AGA or formed part of AGA’s product range.
A common theme in UKIG’s appeal was that it had no alternative way to describe its products, other than through a composite of “AGA” and “eControl”, yet it was noted that UKIG did not have an unfettered right to use “eControl” alongside “AGA”.
Copyright claim
AGA also alleged indirect copying of copyright protected design drawings through the reproduction of the cooker control panel. This claim initially failed due to s51 CDPA which prevents findings of infringement in relation to non-artistic design drawings.
AGA cross appealed, arguing that the panel qualified as a graphic (artistic) work due to being a “thing to be looked at”, however this was rejected as the panel was considered to be primarily functional.
Takeaways
The key conclusion of this case is that while businesses may be free to resell goods by reference to the original trade mark, they must carefully consider if their additions, modifications or other activity gives rise to the impression that they are commercially connected with the original brand owner.
Case details
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Decision level: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Parties: AGA Rangemaster Group Ltd v UK Innovations Group Ltd & Anor
Date: 15 December 2025
Citation: [2025] EWCA Civ 1622
Decision: dycip.com/2025-ewca-civ-1622
