This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/09/kiddee-trumps-trunki-in-battle-of-the-suitcases

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Trunki trumped by Kiddee in design battle of the suitcases Trunki trumped by Kiddee in design battle of the suitcases
(35 minutes later)
The UK company behind Trunki ride-on suitcases for children has lost its battle in London’s supreme court, which dismissed its appeal over the design of Hong Kong rival Kiddee.The UK company behind Trunki ride-on suitcases for children has lost its battle in London’s supreme court, which dismissed its appeal over the design of Hong Kong rival Kiddee.
The case is expected to have implications for small creative businesses in Britain that rely on design rights.The case is expected to have implications for small creative businesses in Britain that rely on design rights.
In a long-running legal saga, Magmatic, the Bristol-based company behind Trunki cases, argued that Kiddee cases infringe its registered design rights. They are made by the Hong Kong-based PMS International and, like Trunki cases, are decorated to look like animals.In a long-running legal saga, Magmatic, the Bristol-based company behind Trunki cases, argued that Kiddee cases infringe its registered design rights. They are made by the Hong Kong-based PMS International and, like Trunki cases, are decorated to look like animals.
Five supreme court justices ruled in favour of PMS on Wednesday. The case centred on the issue of whether surface decoration ought to be considered when deciding if design rights have been infringed.Five supreme court justices ruled in favour of PMS on Wednesday. The case centred on the issue of whether surface decoration ought to be considered when deciding if design rights have been infringed.
The judgement said: “It appears clear that Mr Beverley of PMS conceived the idea of manufacturing a Kiddee Case as a result of seeing a Trunki, and discovering that a discount model was not available. Unfortunately for Magmatic, however, this appeal is not concerned with an idea or an invention, but with a design.” The judgment said: “It appears clear that Mr Beverley of PMS conceived the idea of manufacturing a Kiddee Case as a result of seeing a Trunki, and discovering that a discount model was not available. Unfortunately for Magmatic, however, this appeal is not concerned with an idea or an invention, but with a design.”
Paul Beverley, managing director of PMS International, has openly admitted that he came up with the idea for Kiddee cases after seeing Trunki luggage. He hailed the court decision as a “victory for fair competition”. He said: “Today’s decision in PMS’s favour ensures that the Kiddee case can continue to be sold to price-conscious UK families.” Paul Beverley, the managing director of PMS International, has openly admitted that he came up with the idea for Kiddee cases after seeing Trunki luggage. He hailed the court decision as a “victory for fair competition”. He said: “Today’s decision in PMS’s favour ensures that the Kiddee case can continue to be sold to price-conscious UK families.”
However, Arty Rajendra, an intellectual property expert and partner at law firm Rouse Legal, said: “The ruling is an undoubted blow for UK design and creative industries and leaves significant question marks over the future direction of design rights enforcement in this country.However, Arty Rajendra, an intellectual property expert and partner at law firm Rouse Legal, said: “The ruling is an undoubted blow for UK design and creative industries and leaves significant question marks over the future direction of design rights enforcement in this country.
“The courts have to strike the right balance between incentivising innovation, while simultaneously promoting fair competition. Today’s ruling cements the growing perception that the pendulum swings too far in favour of the alleged infringer.”“The courts have to strike the right balance between incentivising innovation, while simultaneously promoting fair competition. Today’s ruling cements the growing perception that the pendulum swings too far in favour of the alleged infringer.”
Jeremy Drew, head of retail at law firm RPC, said the ruling would “send shockwaves through design-driven businesses. It’s highly likely that other businesses may now begin to see cheaper versions of their well-known original registered designs coming onto the market.” Jeremy Drew, the head of retail at law firm RPC, said the ruling would “send shockwaves through design-driven businesses. It’s highly likely that other businesses may now begin to see cheaper versions of their well-known original registered designs coming on to the market.”