Home » Designs » What became of the Trunki? Magmatic v PMS at appeal

What became of the Trunki? Magmatic v PMS at appeal

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

Trunki-not trunkiBack in September we reported on the result of the Magmatic v PMS case in which the Trunki faced off against the Kiddee Case at the High Court before the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold. At the High Court, PMS’s Kiddee case was found to infringe Magmatic’s Community Registered Design (CRD) for the Trunki.

However, PMS were given leave to appeal the case, and in January the case was heard in the Appeal Court before Lord Justice Moses, Lady Justice Black and Lord Justice Kitchin. The judgement has just been made available, and reveals that the Appeal Court reversed the High Court’s judgement, and ruled that the Kiddee case did not, in fact, create the same overall impression as Magmatic’s CRD, and so did not infringe. IPcopy takes you for another ride through the suitcase-animal fair…

In the appeal case, PMS argued that the Hon. Mr Justice Arnold had “wrongly interpreted the CRD and improperly excluded from his consideration various aspects of the design of the Kiddee Case”. These “various aspects” were, in particular, the colours and surface decoration of the Kiddee Case.

To recap: Magmatic’s CRD was filed as greyscale images. PMS had argued that the greyscale should be interpreted as a ‘colour’ and that the CRD therefore only offered protection for a grey-coloured case. PMS argued that the colours and surface ornamentations of the Kiddee Case should be taken into account when assessing the overall impression of the case. The Hon. Mr Justice Arnold disagreed, and formed the view that since the CRD was clearly for a shape, only features of shape should be considered.

The Appeal Court considered this opinion, and agreed that the CRD should not be restricted to the particular grey colour of the greyscale drawings.

However, the  Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Kitchin noted that whilst the greyscale drawings do not show a particular colour, they do show “a distinct contrast in colour between the wheels and the strap, on the one hand, and the rest of the suitcase, on the other”, and that this contrast should be taken into consideration when assessing the overall impression.

The  Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Kitchin also noted that the lack of surface ornamentation of the CRD should not be dismissed as irrelevant: a lack of surface ornamentation can be considered a design feature, for example as in the Samsung v Apple case [2012] EWCA Civ 1339, and the lack of surface ornamentation in the CRD compared to the presence of surface ornamentation on the Kiddee Case does affect the overall impression of the case.

Against this background, the Appeal Court re-assessed the overall impressions of the Kiddee Case and the Trunki CRD and found that the Kiddee Case created a different overall impression to the CRD, and so did not infringe. In particular, the court found that, considered globally and taking into account the surface ornamentation (or lack thereof), the Trunki CRD created the impression of a horned animal, while the Kiddee Case created the impression of a ladybird with antenna, or a tiger with ears.

The take-home message is that filing greyscale drawings rather than black and white line drawings really can impact on the scope of a CRD – stick to the line drawings where you can!

Emily Weal 4 March 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: