PMS International Cow Kiddee Case - Kids Travel Case

Product Information

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. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow. On appeal, however, it was held that the scope of protection under the RCD had been interpreted incorrectly in two ways. 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.

The Supreme Court is certainly correct to say that if the overall impression is that of a horned animal then one must assess alleged infringements to evaluate if they too make the same impression. However, the decision slightly glosses over the fact that it was the surface decoration of the Kiddee case (giving the impression of an insect with antennae in one embodiment, or a tiger with ears in another) that distanced the overall impression from being that of a horned creature. The surface decoration given to many objects could either reinforce or dilute the impression of the unadorned shape. One could conceivably decorate many objects to distract from the underlying shape claimed in a registered design or to give a different impression from the unadorned shape. 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.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.

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.” At first instance, Arnold J held that there was infringement. He held that the "CRD is evidently for the shape of the suitcase, and the proper comparison is with the shape of the Kiddee Case." As a result, he agreed with magmatic's submission thatthat, "when comparing the CRD with the Kiddee Case, the graphical designs on the surface of the Kiddee Case are to be ignored." Comapring the respective shapes alone, and ignoring the markings on the side and the eyes at the front, he found that there had been infringement.

On 9 March the UK’s highest court handed down a decision 1 confirming non-infringement of a Community registered design (CRD). This is the first decision relating to registered design rights to be decided by the Supreme Court since it came into being in 2009. The decision is important in clarifying the scope and interpretation of registered designs. If you have followed the Trunki brand from it’s beginnings, however, this might seem like a case of forewarnings coming true. On Dragon’s Den, where Law tried to launch the product, Peter Jones warned the creator that the design was unprotectable. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Community Registered Design (CRD) for the popular children's ride on Trunki suitcase has not been infringed by its discount rival ride-on Kiddee Case. The Trunki design was protected by a community registered design (CRD) that consisted of six representations of the exterior of the case from various angles and perspectives. 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. Magmatic’s computer-aided design (Cad) drawings did not show any surface decoration.

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; 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. An ongoing lawsuit between UK based Trunki maker Magmatic and Kiddee Case owners PMS International has been closed in favour of Kiddee Case.

Content Development

Having considered these matters, Kitchin LJ reversed Arnold J’s decision, instead finding that PMS did not infringe Magmatic’s RCD. This was good news for PMS, although there was a feeling of sympathy for Magmatic, who were generally considered to have devised an innovative product, and whose design perhaps deserved a greater scope of protection. In the judgment handed down a few days ago, the Supreme Court judge Lord Neuberger – unfortunately for Magmatic – agreed with Kitchin LJ’s findings. The outcome is perhaps not surprising, but the discussions and what it means are interesting. The decision of the Court of Appeal noted the importance of surface decoration and contrast of colour when considering the overall impression created by the designs.