Home » Designs » Trunki Revisited (or “Peter Jones, Dragon not Patent Attorney”)

Trunki Revisited (or “Peter Jones, Dragon not Patent Attorney”)

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.

dragons den

Image from dullhunk* (via Flickr) under Creative Commons (click for licence)

Dragon’s Den returned to our screens last night and this therefore seemed like the perfect time to summarise one of the talks given at Fieldfisher’s recent Patent Experts Seminar on 10th July in their fabulous new offices overlooking the Thames.

In the opening session of the seminar David Knight looked over the recent Trunki decision (PMS’s Kiddee case versus Magmatic’s Community Registered Design (CRD) for the Trunki – see image below). While reviewing a design case in the context of a patent seminar seemed a little strange at first it ultimately proved to be an interesting take on the Trunki story and made us look at the position, assumed by one of the Dragons, that the product was not patentable.

Setting the scene David noted that designs protect how “it” looks whereas patents will protect how “it” works. When the Trunki design was originally presented to the Dragons back in 2006 they all decided against investing in the product after Theo Paphitis managed to break the strap on one of the suitcases. During the course of the grilling that inventor Rob Law received he was told by Peter Jones (the tall dragon) that “This type of product is not patentable…..I could have a competing product on the market within 7 days”. But how accurate was this patentability assessment? 

The Dragons and the Design Background

Anyone wanting to view Peter Jones’ withering assessment of the Trunki can watch again at the bottom of this post via the wonders of YouTube. Anyone wanting to read about the £7 million per year company that resulted from this “Dragon’s reject” can read here.

The Trunki CRD is on the left, the Trunki product in the middle and the Kiddee case is on the right)

The Trunki CRD is on the left, the Trunki product in the middle and the Kiddee case is on the right)

IPcopy has previously covered the outcome of the Trunki appeal case (see post). As previously noted the design drawings in the Trunki Community Registered Design were not black and white line drawings but CAD greyscale images. On Appeal, The  Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Kitchin noted that the lack of surface ornamentation in the CRD compared to the presence of surface ornamentation on the Kiddee Case did 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.

The Patent Position

Essentially Magmatic had tried to use its CRD to protect a whole product genre rather than what the product actually looked like. Protecting a product in this way would have been something that a patent might be able to achieve. So, could Magmatic have tried to protect the Trunki via a patent application? Or was Peter Jones right and was the Trunki something that just couldn’t be patented?

David reminded us briefly that patents are available for inventions capable of industrial application that are new and inventive. So, what might the prior art have been? Standard style suitcases with “towing” straps were known at the time the Trunki came onto the market. Based on such prior art David suggested that there may, contrary to Peter Jones’ assessment, have been a number of features that might have been patentable, namely:

– the oversized wheels of the Trunki (compared to a standard suitcase). These larger wheels allowed a Trunki user to scoot along;

– the bumper feature;

– reinforced components such as walls, axles etc. to allow a user to ride on the case;

– the saddle feature formed by the depression in the top surface of the case;

– the positioning of the tow handle which facilitated towing by an adult while allowing the case to remain horizontal.

So, contrary to the position suggested in “the Den” the Trunki appears as though it could have been potentially patentable.

The only possible fly in the ointment here would have been the existence of the “Rodeo” luggage system which appeared in a design competition in 1998. The Rodeo luggage system was actually designed by Rob Law as well and was assessed at some length during the original design case in the High Court. The Rodeo design was considered to create a different overall impression than the CRD and so the design was found to be valid.

The test for validity in patent cases is however different to the validity assessment in design cases and it appears that a lot of the technical features that are present on the Trunki case are also to be found in the Rodeo product. So, the Rodeo disclosure may have prevented a patent application to the Trunki features from succeeding.

However, the point to take home here is that the Trunki case comprised technical features that were inherently patentable and it was only the prior art that may have prevented a patent from granting.


Following this session a number of lessons may be gleaned from the Trunki cases:

1. Although the Dragon’s Den programme may highlight where the intellectual property issues are, it won’t necessarily get them correct!

2. Peter Jones suggested in his analysis that he could have a similar product on the market within a very short timespan. In reality it took 8 years for a competing product to make its way onto the scene.

3. Magmatic has, subsequent to Trunki, applied for a number of patent applications to booster seats and lockable containers.


Mark Richardson 21 July 2014

Here’s the view from the conference room level at the new Fieldfisher offices. The weather was a little below par but the view was still impressive!

fieldfisher view


*Link to Dragon’s Den Image

1 Comment

  1. Laurence Murphy says:

    Community Registered Design (“CRD”) for the Trunki suitcase
    Presumably RCD was obtained on novelty based on a new shape, and, the new use of the suitcase also gives it individual character as it now becomes a fun suitcase whereas the new shape does the traveling for the child.
    Presumably the uniqueness of the new shape warrants a greater protection penumbra.
    Question: does a change of ornaments on a shape change the shape or the concept related to the new function of a suitcase (fun shape on wheels) which can contain clothing, be pulled like a wheelie case or sat on as a toy?
    What are immaterial details when it comes to the protection of a new design shape concept?
    Is it more important to protect small ornamentation or is it more important to protect a new design shape concept?
    Does the ornamentation not depend on the overall shape concept. 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 right to shape novelty/individual character should be preserved for the prior art.
    In more common parlance, if one buys meat from a butcher and serves it with parsley, does the parsley change the piece of meat. Does meat need parsley to make it different. Surely it would make sense that those who want parsley and also want meat 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 it 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 parsley so as to be able to eat meat for free?
    Looking forward to hearing from you,
    Yours truly

    NB This is a personal opinion, I am not a lawyer.

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: