Apple has failed to overturn a UK High Court decision to reject the Californian company's claim that Samsung copied its iPad designs for its own tablets.
Judge Colin Birss had ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, 8.9 and 7.7 did not infringe on Apple's iPad copyright because they were not "as cool".
As part of its ruling, which has now been upheld, the High Court ordered Apple to run an advert on its website expressly stating that Samsung did not copy iPad designs for its own tablets for at least six months.
In his ruling, the Judge Birss said Samsung's tablets "do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different".
A Samsung spokesman welcomed the decision to uphold the ruling, adding that Apple's global legal assault against the South Korean firm is to the detriment of the consumer.
"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," the spokesman said.
"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 unduly limited," he added.
Apple has not released a statement as yet, as it contemplates the defeat of yet another design lawsuit, following those in the Dutch, Australian and South Korean courts earlier this year.
It was dealt a blow last week when a ruling by US Court of Appeals lifted a ban on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the US.
Samsung told Computing that it expects the UK ruling to be published by the court in the next few hours.
By eliminating high entry costs for big data analysis, you can convert more raw data into valuable business insight.
A discussion of the "risk perception gap", its implications and how it can be closed