Lack of
Entitlement breaks glass
vase design
10 The Australian Designs Office
decision in Manuel Canestrini v
Ilan El 1 demonstrates that a failure
to satisfy this requirement can
result in revocation of a design
registration. The decision also
highlights that a request for
revocation will be successful only if
the lack of entitlement challenge is
supported by sufficient evidence.

Background The decision concerned Australian
Design Registrations 201911962
and 201911963 (the ‘962 and ‘963
Registrations). The Registrations
were applied for by Ilan El (the
‘Owner’) in April 2019 and were
subsequently registered in early
July 2019 with the Owner recorded
as the sole designer. A request
for revocation of the Registrations
was made by Manuel Canestrini
(the ‘Requestor’) in late July 2019.

The Owner and the Requestor
had been business partners in a
Manuel Canestrini v Ilan El [2020] ADO 2 (25 June 2020)
1
business known as ‘Formacy’ from
March 2017 until February 2018
when the Owner resigned from the
partnership. Part of the Requestor’s
evidence was the Owner’s
resignation email which noted “As
for the designs that we’ve developed
and the products produced to
date - These are all yours.”
The Owner did not contest or
participate in the proceedings
although the Delegate noted
that the onus remained with the
Requestor to establish, on the
balance of probabilities, that the
Owner was either not entitled or
not solely entitled to the design.

The Decision
The ‘963 Registration related to a
‘Cannon Vase’ design consisting of a
cannonball object within a cannon-
shaped vase seated in a base.

The Requestor’s evidence
demonstrated that he had conceived
and finalised this design in late
Inspire March 2021
The validity of an Australian design
registration requires that the registered
owner is properly entitled to the design rights.