PMS International Cow Kiddee Case - Kids Travel Case

Product Information

In deciding the merits between the two interpretations of the Trunki CRD, Lord Neuberger came back to the issue of choice (this Kat was continually reminded of Lord Diplock's classic statement in Catnic: " My Lords, a patent specification is a unilateral statement by the patentee, in words of his own choosing, addressed to those likely to have a practical interest in the subject matter of his invention (i.

The IPKat knows that the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys is planning to hold an event on April 27 to discuss the topic, at which the great and the good of the design world will be speaking, including counsel for both sides in this case. Unfortunately for Magmatic, however, this appeal is not concerned with an idea or an invention, but with a design.Whether it was in fact a feature of a given registered design turned on the proper interpretation of the representations used in the registration. The scope of protection offered by design rights will be construed narrowly and proving design right infringement in the UK remains difficult. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the judge had materially misdirected himself and could therefore properly consider the question of infringement for themselves.

Even where the registered design does not have surface decoration, the surface decoration on the allegedly infringing item may give rise to a different overall impression. The courts have to strike the right balance between incentivising innovation, while simultaneously promoting fair competition. Magmatic applied for an RCD, and asked the UK courts to determine if PMS had committed an infringement by producing and selling their Kiddee case.Overall therefore, the Supreme Court decision this morning in our view only provides limited clarity on the scope of protection of shape designs. 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. Further, it should consider whether the differences between the Kiddee Case (a product which PMS admitted was at least inspired by the Trunki) and the CRD are sufficient to avoid design infringement. So, let’s say that the new and ‘impressionable’ aspect of your design was the surface decoration of a tea mug.

The “best” or most cost effective strategy for providing design protection for a product will depend very much on the facts of the case and the commercial importance of the product.We created an original product in Trunki and protected it by computer-generated registered design – a process used to protect a third of designs across Europe. As Dr Martin Schlötelburg, the co-ordinator of OHIM’s Designs Department, has written, “the selection of the means for representing a design is equivalent to the drafting of the claims in a patent: including features means claiming them”. In contrast, a photo specifies not only the shape, but the surface structure and the material as well, thereby narrowing the scope of protection accordingly” - [2003] EIPR 383, 385. This will be the first time the Supreme Court has heard a case involving the application of Community Registered Design law, and is likely to have important repercussions for the creative industries.

It is important that the images do not include unnecessary features, such as colour, shading or surface decoration.The UK Company Magmatic who designed Trunki ride-on suitcases for children has lost its battle in the Supreme Court in London, which dismissed its appeal over the design of Hong Kong rival company Kiddee. Unfortunately for Magmatic, design registrations cannot (and were never intended to) prevent a competitor from copying the underlying concept. Therefore, although the High Court was correct to find that the CRD covered the design in all colours due to its monochrome representation, it wrongly disregarded the colour contrasts contained within the CRD.