PMS International Cow Kiddee Case - Kids Travel Case

Product Information

Further, in the light of article 36(6), an applicant should appreciate that it will almost always be those images which exclusively identify the nature and extent of the monopoly which he is claiming. The colour contrast between the wheels and the body of the CRD was a striking feature which was not present in the Defendant's designs. The validity and scope of protection enjoyed by a CRD is not examined until an owner seeks to enforce it. All of this may also be seen as somewhat controversial since it hints at a role for surface decoration in cases where there is none shown in a CRD. What does come out from the decision, yet again, is the importance of care in filing design registrations, so as not to limit scope of protection unnecessarily, especially for shape designs.

The Trunki RCD consists of 3D computer assisted drawings (CADs) in which the body of the Trunki appears in a uniform shade of grey, but significantly the strap and wheels are coloured in black.Despite this, but with considerable sympathy for Magmatic, the SC had to agree with the CoA in finding that the design of Kiddee Case was just too far removed from Magmatic's design registration to constitute an infringement. This means the design registration for the Trunki only covered the actual animal shape that was shown in the application – it did not give its owners any right to claim a monopoly in any ride-on children's luggage in the shape of any animal. Magmatic’s chief executive and founder, Rob Law, said the company was “devastated and bewildered” by this judgment. The Supreme Court has ruled that a registered design strictly protects the shape of the item shown on the application form. 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.

It is a conclusion I would have reached with some regret, as the conception of the Trunki, a ride-on wheeled case which looks like an animal, seems to have been both original and clever; as Arnold J said at para 16 of his judgment, “[t]here is no dispute that the Trunki was an innovative design” and it “has won numerous awards and has been a significant commercial success. The Supreme Court commented obiter that "it seems plain to me that absence of decoration can, as a matter of principle, be a feature of a registered design.It is a conclusion I have reached with some regret, as the conception of the Trunki, a ride-on wheeled case which looks like an animal, seems to have been both original and clever," the Judge conceded. Accordingly, as Kitchin LJ observed at para 42 of his judgment, “the various representations [in the CRD] are shown in monochrome, and so it must be concluded that this design is not limited to particular colours”, and therefore “PMS cannot point to the colour of the Kiddee Case as being a point of distinction”.

The Trunki RCD did not therefore claim merely a shape, but a shape in two contrasting colours [see para 53]. We therefore recommend that designers seek professional assistance in considering the possible variations of a design to protect when filing design applications. The scope of protection is determined by the graphical representation of the design and the information that it conveyed and the judge followed Jacob LJ's comments in the Febreze case, where Jacob LJ said that the proper comparison is the shape, graphics on the articles being irrelevant. Lord Neuberger noted that while one cannot expect a trial judge to mention every factor that influenced a decision, when a trial judge has given a full and careful judgment and has mentioned the points that weighed with him, it is correct to conclude that failure to mention a specific important point means that he overlooked it.

The court of appeal said this created the impression of a horned animal, whereas the Kiddee case resembled an insect with antennae or an animal with floppy ears.

As another example, if your design was for a new mobile phone you should think about producing line-drawings of the design rather than relying on computer-generated images or photographs. Unfortunately for Magmatic, design registrations cannot (and were never intended to) prevent a competitor from copying the underlying concept.However, since Magmatic’s CRD was was more sculpted and modern, it produced an overall impression which was different from the 1998 prototype, and thus met the validity threshold. Magmatic has argued that since its drawings did not show any graphical designs on the exterior of the suitcases, the designs on the surface of the Kiddee case had to be ignored. Again, comparing the shape and other features of the CRD with the equivalent elements in the Kiddee Cases, and ignoring surface decoration, one can understand that conclusion, even if reasonable people might differ. e. as shown in the leftmost image above: grey for the greater part of the body (including the horns), and black for the wheels and spokes, the strap on top, and the strips on the front and rear. The HC on the other hand had viewed the RCD as just protecting the shape alone and had not taken account of the colour contrast (which was absent in the Kiddee Case) when comparing the designs.