UK Supreme Court to hear Trunki design case
The UK Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow over whether toy maker PMS International infringed a registered Community design (RCD) owned by Magmatic, the maker of the Trunki children’s suitcase.
It follows an appeal filed by Magmatic seeking to overturn the English Court of Appeal’s 2014 decision that PMS’s Kiddee Case did not infringe the design.
The UK Supreme Court will hear the case on November 3.
Magmatic first started selling the Trunki in 2006. Targeted at children, the animal-shaped product has an indent on the top and horns on the front, allowing a child to grip onto and ride it.
In 2012, PMS started selling the Kiddee Case, also designed in the shape of an animal, with two horns on the front for a child to grip onto while riding it.
Magmatic sued PMS in 2013 alleging infringement of its RCD covering the Trunki and was initially successful in its claim. Mr Justice Arnold ruled in July 2013 that the Kiddee Case was infringing.
But Arnold’s decision was overturned by the appeals court in February last year.
“The overall impression created by the two designs is very different. The impression created by the RCD is that of a horned animal. It is a sleek and stylised design and, from the side, has a generally symmetrical appearance with a significant cut away semicircle below the ridge.
“By contrast the design of the Kiddee Case is softer and more rounded and evocative of an insect with antennae or an animal with floppy ears. At both a general and a detailed level the Kiddee Case conveys a very different impression,” the appeals court said.
Magmatic has attempted to generate public support for its case by asking Twitter users to tweet the #ProtectYourDesign hashtag.
“We’re determined to keep fighting the scourge of rip-offs on behalf of responsible companies worldwide ... We’re hoping the top judges in the land will see sense at the Supreme Court hearing and that by carefully examining the facts, the judges will conclude that the previous reversal was wrong and would be disastrous for hundreds of thousands of small, creative British businesses,” the company said.
Clare Jackman, of counsel at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said the case has attracted a lot of interest from designers and said she hopes that the Supreme Court's decision will clarify the scope of RCD protection.
“The hope and expectation is that the outcome will inspire designers with confidence in the registered design system by clarifying the law with regard to how designers go about seeking protection for their original and innovative designs and how their designs will be assessed for the purposes of comparison if they subsequently seek to rely on their registered protection to enforce their rights,” she added.
