I should perhaps add that, while it may be little comfort to Magmatic, I think I would have reached the same conclusion.

Unfortunately for Magmatic, however, this appeal is not concerned with an idea or an invention, but with a design. 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].However, on an obiter basis, the Supreme Court decided the point of principle that absence of ornamentation can be a feature of a CRD. The colour contrast between the wheels and the body of the CRD was a striking feature which was not present in the Defendant's designs. However, designers must be wary: the representations used will alone serve to delineate the scope of protection afforded to the registration and they cannot be amended, removed or replaced after filing.

In particular, it is expected to provide clarification on whether the colour contrasts shown in the CRD’s computer-aided drawings do in fact operate to limit the design to a particular style of surface decoration. However, when determining this, one must take into account the degree of freedom of the designer, when designing the allegedly infringing article. Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found that it would be natural to infer from the Trunki RCD that the components shown in black (the strap and wheels) were intended to be a different contrasting colour from the body of the Trunki case [see para 52]. Given that the Court of Appeal was right to hold that Arnold J misdirected himself in the respects discussed above, I consider that they were, to put it at its lowest, entitled to hold that the judge materially misdirected himself, and that the Court of Appeal should reconsider the question of infringement for itself. The HC on the other hand had viewed the RCD as just protecting the shape alone and had not taken account of the colour contrast (which was absent in the Kiddee Case) when comparing the designs.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. e. horns) on the CRD rather stood out as features, whereas on the Kiddee Case the wheels were very largely covered, and the handles (at least in some examples) had the same colour as the body. 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. Whilst these reduced application costs should attract more users to seek protection of products through design right, the fact remains that it will be difficult to successfully assert design right infringement in the UK courts. However, this ‘genericising’ (or broadening) of the design should be matched against the need for the design to be valid.

The High Court Judge found that the RCD was “evidently for the shape of the suitcase” and therefore ignored the decorations on the Kiddee Case. The five judges found that the overall impression of the two sets of cases were “significantly different” as the Trunki cases were animals with horns, whilst the Kiddee Cases were insects with antennae or animals with ears. The UK Supreme Court today handed down its first decision on design rights, in the Trunki case ( PMS International (Respondent) v Magmatic (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 12).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 court must take into consideration the way that the particular design is intended to be used and interacted with, which may lead to certain design features having greater influence on the overall impression than others. While the decision only issued this morning and will no doubt be pored over in the coming days and weeks, this Kat feels that the Supreme Court got it largely right.