Xe re-created xyr own formal full design document for the product, showing the precise PCB shapes and the positions of the components, holes, and ports. Xe boasted about doing so, and published the document, leafing through it page by page and pointing out in a couple of places where the diagrams matched the physical product, in a YouTube video.

To understand this, one has to not miss (as so many unfortunately have) where Louis Rossman read out a part of an e-mail to MendItMark where it was stated by Tom Evans Audio Design that these are registered designs.

There is a third right in U.K. intellectual property law, a third right that the Copyright, Designs, and Patent Act 1988 grants in addition to copyrights and patents. It's there in the Act title: design right.

Design right grants exclusive right to its owner to make "a design document recording the design" and subsists in "the shape or configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of an article".

* https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/III

Copyright and patent are beside the point. Tom Evans went after MendItMark on design right grounds, which is not really that surprising given that it is Tom Evans Audio Design and the WWW blurb at https://www.audiodesign.co.uk/ explains that Tom Evans does design work.

There are hundreds of registered printed circuit board designs, and audio amplifier designs, that one can find on DesignView (the EUIPO search tool), to compare and thus see exactly how MendItMark's ring-bound 12 page document records the design of the product; and that is just registered designs. (Although Tom Evans claimed that these are registered, xe would still have design right even if they were not, as xe gains the right from having manufactured products to xyr design.)

The sad thing is that MendItMark would have been able to lambast the poor design with total impunity if xe hadn't done what §226 of the CDPA names primary infringement of design right . As it stands, Tom Evans seems to have a very strong leg to stand on, from the black and white of the statute.

Whilst MendItMark doesn't even have the possibility of claiming that xe did this for educational reasons, as xe not only monetized the video (which makes it a publication for commercial purposes) xe stated in the video right after showing the document that this stuff was part of xyr £400 a pop (currently discounted to £250 as I type this) training course.

Also note that YouTube's terms and conditions don't say merely not to infringe copyright. They say not to infringe other people's intellectual property rights, and design right is such a property right in the U.K., where both Tom Evans (1 bloke in Wales) and MendItMark (1 bloke in England) are located.