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 2 Version 3
Trunki trumped by Kiddee in design battle of the suitcases Trunki trumped by Kiddee in design battle of the suitcases
(about 3 hours 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 the supreme court in London, 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. Lawyers and intellectual property experts said the ruling was a blow to small creative businesses in Britain that rely on design rights, and meant that designers would need to take great care when applying for protection for designs in future.
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. Jeremy Drew, head of retail at law firm RPC, said it would “send shockwaves through design-driven businesses”. He added: “It is highly likely that other businesses may now begin to see cheaper versions of their well-known original registered designs coming on to the market.”
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. In a long-running legal saga, Magmatic, the Bristol-based company behind Trunki, argued that Kiddee suitcases 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.
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.” Five supreme court justices unanimously 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.
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.” Magmatic’s chief executive and founder, Rob Law, said the company was “devastated and bewildered” by this judgment. “We created an original product in Trunki and protected it by computer-generated registered design – a process used to protect a third of designs across Europe. In my honest opinion, the Trunki was wilfully ripped off.”
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 legal battle has lasted several years and cost the firm more than £500,000.
“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.” Lord Neuberger, the court’s president, expressed “some regret” as the conception of the Trunki “seems to have been both original and clever”.
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.” The judgment then 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, the managing director of PMS, 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.”
Tania Clark, partner and trademark attorney at European intellectual property (IP) firm Withers & Rogers, said: “What Magmatic was effectively trying to achieve in this case, on the basis of a single registered design, was the exclusion of a competitor’s design from the market. Given the differences in the designs, however, this was not enough.”
Clare Jackman, an IP lawyer at global law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, said it was likely that designers would file a number of applications to protect products in future, rather than relying on just one.
Arty Rajendra, partner at law firm Rouse Legal, described the court ruling as an “undoubted blow for UK design and creative industries”. “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.”