PMS International Cow Kiddee Case - Kids Travel Case

Product Information

Lord Neuberger concluded that the CA had been right to hold that Arnold J had misdirected himself in relation to the above points. The CA was right to hold that the design claimed in this case was for a suitcase on wheels in the shape of a horned animal with straps, strips and wheels in a contrasted colour or colours and the Kiddee Case created a different overall impression. As a result, designers should look to produce representations of their design which are as ‘generic’ as possible. If one used the Kiddee case images to register a design, it would clearly be too narrow. There is quite a lot of detail in the design which help give it an individual character. Arguably, the lady-bug case produces quite a different impression, as compared to the lion case! Magmatic’s representation is quite a bit better, but as discussed above contains some features which provide a contrast which is not necessarily what you would want.

On appeal, however, it was held that the scope of protection under the RCD had been interpreted incorrectly in two ways. A recent decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has highlighted again the importance of the form and amount of detail shown in the views (formally called “representations”) of a design in a Registered Community Design (RCD). The appeal reverses the earlier High Court decision, in which it was held that PMS’s “Kiddee Case” fell within the scope of Magmatic’s RCD for the well-known “Trunki” ride-on suitcase, largely based on a different interpretation being taken on which features of the design depicted in the representations were significant. In more common parlance, if one buys meat from a butcher and serves it with parsley, does the parsley change the shape of the piece of meat. Does meat need parsley to make it different. Surely it would make sense if those who want parsley and also want meat realise that they must pay for the meat and for the parsley. When I go to a shop to buy parsley surely I also have to buy the meat (or a vegetarian burger) if I want to eat the parley with it. I cannot just take the meat from the shop and say that I am entitled to it because I want to eat it with parsley or buy parley so as to be able to eat meat with it for free? To start with, a brief recap of the law surrounding designs in the UK. There are two mainstream routes you can chose when looking to protect your design. Either you can apply for an EU-wide registered design (a so called Registered Community Design, or RCD), or a UK only Registered Design. 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.In 2012, Magmatic sued PMS International for infringement of its CRD, when it started to import and sell a similar cheaper ride-on suitcase called Kiddy Case, two of which are shown below: About 30% of designs across the EU are registered using Cad. The court of appeal ruling meant Cad drawings would no longer be offered the same protection as line drawings, which meant third parties would be able to claim differences in surface decoration should be taken into account, according to the Anti-Copying In Design group. There were, he said ‘many significant differences’ between the profile of the two products as well as their colour and decoration. Richard Willoughby, who specialises in design and patent litigation at law firm D Young & Co, said: “The outcome of the Trunki case may significantly impact the scope of protection for registered community designs … and is eagerly awaited by businesses and practitioners alike.”

The case concerned a Community registered design (CRD) for the well-known Trunki ride-on childrens' suitcase. The ultimate question in any design case under European Union harmonised law is whether the overall impression of the design of (or incorporated in) the alleged infringement is the same as that of the CRD. This first involves identifying what the overall impressions of the two designs are. Thus, the scope of protection of the RCD is limited to a design with a striking contrast in colour between the wheels and strap, and the body of the suitcase. In March 2014, PMS appealed the decision of the High Court. Controversially, the Court of Appeal found the Kiddee suitcases produced a different overall impression on an informed user when compared to Magmatic’s design for the Trunki suitcases, and therefore, the Court of Appeal, reversing the High Court decision from July 2013, ruled that the Kiddee cases did not infringe the registered design right owned by Magmatic for the Trunki suitcases. Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below. The three main factors relevant to the finding that Magmatic’s Trunki RCD was not infringed by PMS’s Kiddee Case are:In the final installment of the Trunki design infringement litigation, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that PMS’s rival “Kiddee Case” did not infringe Magmatic’s Registered Community Design (RCD) for the Trunki case. We consider what this decision means for designers and what practical lessons can be learned from the Supreme Court’s ruling. Describing the insect version of the Kiddee Case, he said: ‘It looks like a ladybird and the handles on its forehead look like antennae. Does the ornamentation not depend on the overall shape corpus? Should someone who wants to use such a novel design shape not have to pay for the use of such a shape? And, if they want to change the ornamentation take separate RCDs to individuate their new ornamentation under class 32? Novelty can then be attributed to changes in ornamentation whereas the entitlement of the design corpus for novelty/individual character rights can rightfully be preserved for the prior art shape? In either case, a registered design protects the appearance of the whole or part of a product. For an article to infringe a registered design, it should not produce a different overall impression on an informed user. First, the Judge had failed to give proper weight to the overall impression of the shape of the design as an animal with horns, which was significantly different from the impression made by the Kiddee case with its the ears or antennae.

However he has gone on to sell two million of his children’s ride-on suitcases but he has been dealt a potentially crippling blow as judges ruled a rival product does not infringe on his design rights. The controversial decision stemmed from the interpretation of the monochrome representations (one representation is shown below) filed as part of the registered community design (RCD) for the Trunki suitcase. A monochrome representation should mean the design is not limited to particular colours, and thus, PMS could not use the colours of a Kiddee case as a point of distinction between the Kiddee and Trunki suitcases.

The IPKat's most-read posts in the past 30 days

To remind readers of the designs in question, the image below shows the CRD, an example of the Trunki case and an example of the Kiddee case. The 3D model of the cube has been lit from the top, and so the top side looks a markedly different colour to the front or other sides. Whereas the line-drawing of the cube removes this ambiguity. Other measures First, it was held that the representations in the RCD did convey limitations in relation to the surface design. The appeal judge noted that the views in the RCD were 3D images of the suitcase, depicting, the “effect of light upon its surfaces”. The judge also noted that the absence of imagery on the surfaces of the design "significantly affects how the shape itself strikes the eye, and the overall impression it gives”, helping to convey the visual impression of a “horned animal”. In short, the appeal judge held that the plain surface of the product in the RCD was, in fact, a design feature.

From left to right: Magmatic's registered design; their Trunki case; and PMS's allegedly infringing Kiddee case Dani Kramer, partner and design attorney, Mathys & Squire: “As the inventor of the Trunki suitcase has discovered, the more successful a business or product is, the more likely it is to come under fire from imitators. Registering a series of designs, each covering different variations, will afford more robust protection than for a single design, and the costs scale down the more that are filed, making it affordable even for the smallest businesses. Lord Justice Kitchin said: ‘The Kiddee Case is softer and more rounded and evocative of an insect with antennae or an animal with floppy ears.’The judge had failed to give proper weight to the overall impression created by the CRD as that of a horned animal when comparing it to the Kiddee Case; For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more. The appearance of the Trunki case is protected in the EU by a Registered Community Design (RCD) (and by certain elements of UK unregistered design law, to which related infringement proceedings had already been concluded). Whilst the registered design system can seem quite straightforward, the Trunki decision shows that interpreting registered designs and the protection they afford can be far from straightforward.