PMS International Cow Kiddee Case - Kids Travel Case

Product Information

The SC noted that the CADs used in the RCD clearly showed a (non-specific) colour contrast between the body of the case on the one hand and the wheels and the strap on the other. It recognised that the CRD, which was filed in 2003, shared design elements with an earlier prototype exhibited by Magmatic in 1998 [see Fig 1]. Has the Trunki case merely reinforced the perception that (registered) design right enforcement in the UK is predictably unpredictable? Lord Neuberger, in analysing the appellate judgment, has in fact identified three criticisms made by the Court of Appeal. He was turned down by the judges on the BBC show Dragons’ Den in 2006 and left without any investment, but went on to sign a contract with John Lewis.

The Trunki RCD did not therefore claim merely a shape, but a shape in two contrasting colours [see para 53].

On the key issue of whether surface decoration was relevant to that consideration, the Supreme Court judgment appears to play down its importance, describing it as having "limited force" in this particular case. e. not exactly the same as a design known to the public – and it should produce a different overall impression on the informed user (the same test as discussed above with relation to infringement).

It also hinted at there being more force in the point where surface decoration had been "positively distracting in nature": then it may have an effect on overall impression. PMS International Group's competing product, the Kiddee Case, does not infringe Magmatic's registered design rights. Simplicity or minimalism can notoriously be an aspect of a design, and it would be very curious if a design right registration system did not cater for it. It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. To the extent that a concept is new and inventive, it might be protectable by patent rights which would prevent anyone from copying the concept, irrespective of the exact design execution used.

Last week the UK The Supreme Court ruled against the designer of the award-winning Trunki children's suitcase. Over and above these considerations, it is also worth remembering that an applicant is entitled to make any number of applications. It marks the conclusion of a long standing, but ultimately unsuccessful, battle by Magmatic to rely on its design registrations to prevent what many would see as a discount knock off product from competing on the market.