Apple loses appeal as judges agree iPads too cool to copy Apple has lost a Court of Appeal battle in a legal action that claimed Samsung's Galaxy tablet computer was too similar to its iPad product. A judge at the High Court in London ruled in July that the Galaxy tablet was not "cool" enough to be confused with the American giant's iPad. But the appeal was dismissed yesterday by Lord Justice ­Longmore, Lord Justice Kitchin and Sir Robin Jacob. They upheld the decision of Judge Colin Birss QC that three Samsung Galaxy tablet computers did not infringe Apple's ­registered design. He said consumers were not likely to get the two tablet ­computers mixed up. The judge said: "The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy tablets is the following: from the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial ­members of that family with unusual details on the back. The overall impression ­produced is different. Apple had argued that the front face and overall shape were the most important factors as the informed user would spend most of their time looking at the front and holding it. In yesterday's ruling, Sir Robin said: "Because this case (and ­parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the ­accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law. Samsung said: "We welcome the court's judgment, which reaffirmed our position that our Galaxy Tab products do not infringe Apple's registered design right. We continue to believe that Apple was not the first to design a tablet with a rectangular shape and rounded corners and that the origins of Apple's registered design features can be found in numerous examples of prior art. Should Apple continue to make excessive legal claims in other countries based on such generic designs, innovation in the industry could be harmed and consumer choice limited. The three Court of Appeal judges also rejected Apple's challenge against an order made by Judge Birss that it must publicise the fact it had lost the case. Sir Robin said: "The grant of such an order is not to ­punish the party concerned for its ­behaviour. The test is whether there is a need to dispel commercial uncertainty. He added: "The acknowledgment must come from the horse's mouth."