You are here: Home > News > Case closed: Supreme Court dismisses Trunki’s design appeal
Case closed: Supreme Court dismisses Trunki’s design appeal
10 March 2016
PMS International Group Plc (Respondent) v Magmatic Limited (Appellant)  UKSC 12
This case came before the Supreme Court following earlier proceedings at the High Court and Court of Appeal. Two designs were at issue (pictured, left to right): the ‘Trunki’, Magmatic’s Registered Community Design (RCD), and the Kiddee Case by PMS, in various iterations, including one in the manner of a tiger and another similar to a ladybird, for which it was accused of infringement of Magmatic’s design rights.
Rob Law, the founder and director of Magmatic, had come up with an initial suitcase design as part of a winning entry in a design competition in 1998. This design was eventually incorporated into the Trunki in 2003. Mr Law had risen to prominence after appearing on the popular entrepreneurship programme Dragons’ Den, where he turned down an offer from the Dragons but went on to secure a contract with John Lewis. The Trunki was sold as a mid-market to premium product. PMS, aware of the Trunki, began to produce the Kiddee Case, a discount version, in 2010.
At the High Court, Arnold J found in favour of Magmatic, considering that the overall appearance of the Kiddee Case shared the “slimmer, sculpted, sophisticated, modern appearance, prominent ridge and horn-like handles and clasps looking like the nose and tail of an animal” common to the RCD.
In the Court of Appeal, Kitchin LJ reversed Arnold J’s decision, finding that, whereas the RCD looked “as a whole, like a horned animal”, the Kiddee Case was “a tiger with ears.” Further, Arnold J had failed to recognise the role of the contrast of shades between the black wheels/strap and lighter body of the RCD. Thirdly, Arnold J had not properly taken into account the importance of surface decoration, or an absence thereof.
The task of the Supreme Court was to evaluate whether the Court of Appeal was right to reject Arnold J’s decision on this basis. Much of the case hinged on the interpretation of computer generated design drawings. Were the unadorned flanks of the RCD meant to indicate a positive absence of ornamentation, or was the design simply intended to protect the shape of the product? Was the colour contrast of the wheels and strap, as Magmatic claimed, merely an incidental consequence of the use of the CAD software, or should it be considered a constraint on the RCD’s scope of protection?
In considering these matters, Lord Neuberger returned to the basic rules and regulations for the filing of Community Designs. The design applicant is entitled to choose the level of detail which he incorporates in his design and accordingly sets the level of generality at which it should be considered. Citing Lewison J in Procter & Gamble v Reckitt Benckiser, Lord Neuberger repeated that “if [the applicant] chooses too general a level, his design may be invalidated by prior art. If he chooses too specific a level he may not be protected against similar designs.” Moreover, the applicant was free to file as many designs as he wished, and as such the possibility was open to him to protect all permutations of his design at all levels of detail.
Assessing the findings of the Court of Appeal, Lord Neuberger agreed on all three counts.
Firstly, Arnold J had failed to take into account the Trunki’s likeness to a horned animal when assessing the overall impression it produced. As such, he had not properly compared it with the overall impression produced by the Kiddee Case.
The Supreme Court then considered ornamentation, finding that it should be taken into account insofar as it reinforces, counteracts, or interferes with the overall impression of a given design. Nothing in the RCD detracted from the horned animal impression, and the ornamentation of the Kiddee Case confirmed that it was a tiger with ears.
PMS had also argued that the absence of ornamentation on the Trunki design should be understood as restricting its scope of protection to unadorned designs- an absence of surface decoration meant no surface decoration- rather than protecting designs of a similar shape regardless of whether they had surface decoration. The Supreme Court would not be drawn on this point, considering it unnecessary for the purposes of the case at issue. However, Lord Neuberger added that absence of decoration certainly could be considered a feature of a registered design, given the value “notoriously” placed on simplicity and minimalism in design. As such, “it would be very curious if a design right registration system did not cater for it”. It was affirmed that the monochrome nature of the RCD covered all colour variations.
In assessing the contrast of colours in the RCD, Lord Neuberger found that the “natural inference is that the components shown in black are intended to be in a contrasting colour to that of the main body.” This made another important contribution to the differing overall impressions of the designs.
Summing up, Lord Neuberger confessed some regret that Magmatic’s registrations were not sufficient to reward its evident innovation. However, he was only able to judge the case on the rights before him, and noted that the appeal was “not concerned with an idea or an invention, but with a design.”
Simply put, the CAD drawings submitted of the design were not sufficient to afford a monopoly of the sort that Magmatic desired. Given the differences in the designs, a judgment favouring Magmatic would have been equivalent to protecting the idea behind the product, rather than the specific appearance of the product as set down in the design registration.
This case highlights that the scope of protection of a given individual design may well be narrow. However, a broad scope of a protection for a product can be achieved through filing well thought-out drawings, possibly through a suite of registered designs, each showing differing levels of detail. The actual appearance of Magmatic’s ‘Tipu Tiger’ Trunki (pictured) is arguably much closer in appearance to the Kiddee Case than the RCD and so further designs including the tiger-like ornamentation may well have been more successful for Magmatic. Overall, careful and critical assessment of the scope of designs being registered is required to enjoy the full benefits of design registration.
The OHIM’s broad acceptance of different image types, including line drawings, CAD and photographs, and attractive discount pricing for multiple design filings can be seen to promote use of the design system in this way. Often, single design registrations of a product are of limited value. However, well-planned multiple design registrations to cover a single product can provide powerful intellectual property rights.
Trade Mark group
If you require further information on anything covered in this briefing, please contact Charles King (email@example.com; +44 207 940 3600) or your usual contact at the firm.
This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Advertisement".
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
This cookie is native to PHP applications. The cookie is used to store and identify a users' unique session ID for the purpose of managing user session on the website. The cookie is a session cookies and is deleted when all the browser windows are closed.
This cookie is used to check if the cookies are enabled on the users' browser.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
This cookie is set by Google and is used to distinguish users.
This cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the website is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages visted in an anonymous form.
16 years 5 months 12 days 13 hours 26 minutes
These cookies are set via embedded youtube-videos. They register anonymous statistical data on for example how many times the video is displayed and what settings are used for playback.No sensitive data is collected unless you log in to your google account, in that case your choices are linked with your account, for example if you click “like” on a video.
1 year 1 month
The cookie is set by addthis.com to determine the usage of Addthis.com service.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
1 year 24 days
Used by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
1 year 1 month
This cookie is set by Addthis. This is a geolocation cookie to understand where the users sharing the information are located.
This cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
5 months 27 days
This cookie is set by Youtube. Used to track the information of the embedded YouTube videos on a website.
This cookies is set by Youtube and is used to track the views of embedded videos.