PMS International Cow Kiddee Case - Kids Travel Case

Product Information

He has described the court of appeal’s ruling as disastrous for hundreds of thousands of small creative British businesses. g. its colouring and spots) also influenced the overall impression it created: in one design to give the impression of a ladybird with antennae, in another a tiger with ears.

Turning now to Magmatic’s registration, they made use of computer generated images in their RCD as shown below. In the long-running tussle, Magmatic, the Bristol-based company behind Trunki cases, argues that Kiddee case luggage infringes on its registered design rights. The Court of Appeal also found that, although there were some general similarities between the CRD and Kiddee Case, several differences between them contributed to a different overall impression, including: (i) the asymmetric profile of the Kiddee Case; (ii) the absence of a cutaway area along the top of the case; (iii) the absence of filled-in wheel arches; (iv) the softer and more rounded shape; and (v) the lack of contrasting wheels.

And, if they want to change the ornamentation take separate RCDs to individuate their new ornamentation under class 32? Is it more important to protect small ornamentation or is it more important to protect a new design shape concept? To sum up, if cost is not a concern, you should look at filing multiple designs with varying levels of detail and to any variations in the design that you considered important.

Overall therefore, the Supreme Court decision this morning in our view only provides limited clarity on the scope of protection of shape designs. Health and care inquests - Resource library Supporting you when dealing with health and care inquests.Nevertheless, the judgment suggests that surface decoration could be taken into account in deciding whether a shape design is infringed but possibly only to the extent that it would reinforce the overall impression of the underlying shapes concerned. Accordingly, while each Community Registered Design image must be interpreted in its own context, a line drawing is much more likely to be interpreted as not excluding ornamentation than a CAD image. However, while not completely solving this problem, a partial solution may lie in the use of traditional line drawings. In relation to this particular design it was not necessary to decide if absence of ornamentation was indeed a feature of the CRD.

Therefore, although the High Court was correct to find that the CRD covered the design in all colours due to its monochrome representation, it wrongly disregarded the colour contrasts contained within the CRD.

The High Court then compared the Magmatic CRD to the defendant’s Kiddee Case, disregarding the design aspects which the CRD shared with the 1998 prototype (since these were not ‘new’). It was further accepted that PMS entered the market with the specific intent of offering a discount model of the Trunki. Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. The Court rejected the argument that the question of whether the absence of ornamentation in a CRD could, as a matter of law, be a feature of design and if so that it was in the case of this CRD and that this question should be referred to the CJEU, despite the support from the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks for such a reference.

So, let’s say that the new and ‘impressionable’ aspect of your design was the surface decoration of a tea mug. So what can designers do to try and make sure their registered designs provide the protection they want? In particular on the third issue, it is difficult to see how any other conclusion could have been avoided as to the proper interpretation of the design.

At first instance, the High Court considered that the Trunki and the Kiddee case created the same overall impression, and therefore the Kiddee Case was held to infringe the Trunki RCD.