PMS International Cow Kiddee Case - Kids Travel Case

Product Information

In a decision that will no doubt disappoint many design right holders, Magmatic today lost its appeal to the UK Supreme Court in its case against PMS, who sell the competing "Kiddee Case".

On the other hand, the Court of Appeal sanctioned the High Court ruling in Samsung v Apple [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) that an important feature of Apple’s design (also being filed in black and white line drawings [shown at Fig 3]) was a lack of surface decoration, which became an important differentiator between it and the alleged infringement. If the predominant colour of the first example of the Kiddee Case shown in para 4 above was the front part and was coloured red, then one would presumably compare it with the CRD on the basis that the CRD was principally coloured red, but that the wheels and spokes, strap and strips of the CRD were in a contrasting colour, and the Kiddee Case was differently coloured. The IPKat knows that the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys is planning to hold an event on April 27 to discuss the topic, at which the great and the good of the design world will be speaking, including counsel for both sides in this case.This unfortunate outcome for Magmatic emphasises the importance of getting the representations, or drawings, for a registered design right.

Notably, the registration clearly shows the effect of light on the surface of the product, as well as highlighting the difference in tone between the bulk of the case and its wheels. It recognised that the CRD, which was filed in 2003, shared design elements with an earlier prototype exhibited by Magmatic in 1998 [see Fig 1].e. colour is part of a design's scope only if colour is shown in the representations] has long been well established is supported by Dr Schlötelburg’s article, in which he wrote that “where a design is shown in colours, the colours are claimed, while a black and white drawing or photo covers all colours” - [2003] EIPR 383, 385. The CAD rendered drawings in this case suffered fatally from having colour-contrasting wheels, but even without such tonal contrasts the court may regard CAD drawings as inherently more limited than a corresponding traditional line drawing. Arty Rajendra, a partner at law firm Rouse Legal, told The Guardian that the ruling was an “undoubted blow for UK design and creative industries”, and that “the courts have to strike the right balance between incentivising innovation, while simultaneously promoting fair competition.