The claimant manufactured and sold the ‘Trunki’ a child’s ride on suitcase. The defendant imported and sold a similar product. Claims were now made alleging infringement of (i) Community Registered Design, (ii) design rights in a number of designs relating to the Trunki; (iii) the copyright in the artwork for the packaging of the Trunki; and (iv) the copyright in a safety notice on the packaging. PMS conceded claim (iv), but disputed claims (i)-(iii). In relation to claim (i), PMS contended that, if the scope of protection of the CRD is broad enough to encompass the Kiddee Case, the CRD is invalid over an earlier design called the Rodeo.
Held: The CRD was not invalid over the Rodeo, but the Kiddee Case had infringed both the CRD and the UK unregistered design rights, but not the copyright. i) PMS had infringed the CRD;
ii) PMS had infringed the design right in several designs but not all;
iii) PMS das not infringed the copyright in the Trunki artwork;
iv) PMS das infringed the copyright in the Trunki safety notice.
‘Despite the differences between the Kiddee Case and the CRD, the overall impression the Kiddee Case creates shares the slimmer, sculpted, sophisticated, modern appearance, prominent ridge and horn-like handles and clasps looking like the nose and tail of an animal which are present in the CRD, but which are absent from the Rodeo. Moreover, neither the Kiddee Case nor the CRD have anything like the handle which is a prominent feature of the Rodeo.’
Arnold J
[2013] EWHC 1925 (Pat)
Bailii
Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
England and Wales
Cited by:
At PatC – Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd CA 28-Feb-2014
The parties disputed an alleged infringement of a registered design in the Trunki, a child’s suitcase designed to be ridden on, and other infringements of copyright in the packaging. PMS now appealed on the issue of whether the defendant’s Kiddee . .
At PatC – Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd CA 10-Apr-2014
Post appeal assessments as to costs etc for final order. . .
At atPatC – PMS International Group Plc v Magmatic Ltd SC 9-Mar-2016
Overall Impression of Design is a Judgment
The respondent had alleged infringement of its registered design in the ‘Trunki’, a ride-on children’s suitcase. At first instance, the judge had held that the surface decorations were to be ignored. On appeal it had been held that the judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512321