Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
[caption id="attachment_1111" align="aligncenter" width="300"] Got some junk in your Trunki?[/caption]
What was the case about?
Magmatic sells a well-known children’s suitcase known as ‘Trunki‘, famously turned down by the investors in Dragons Den after Peter Jones claimed it could be copied in seven days. PMS designed a similar range of children’s luggage known as ‘Kiddee Case’ which was admittedly inspired by the Trunki.
From left to right in the graphic above: (1) Registered Community Design image for the Trunki (2) a Trunki (3) a Kiddee Case
Magmatic alleged PMS had infringed its:
What did the court say about prior disclosure of the ‘Rodeo’ design when considering validity of the CRD?
The Trunki had an animal-based luggage forerunner, called the ‘Rodeo’, which was designed by the owner of Magmatic while he was at university. The Rodeo won a prize in a student competition, the Institute of Materials Design Award 1998.
PMS alleged the design award ceremony constituted disclosure of the Rodeo design which therefore should form part of the relevant design corpus when considering the novelty and individual character of the CRD under Council Reg (EC) 6/2000, arts 4, 5 and 6 (the Regulation). Magmatic sought to rely on the ‘obscure disclosures’ exception under art 7(1) of the Regulation (the other exception is for confidential disclosures). The court held, however, the exception did not apply—Magmatic could not prove the design of the Rodeo could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to those specialising in suitcases.
The court ruled, however, because the Rodeo was relatively obscure, it did not form part of the designs corpus of which the informed user would be aware. The design corpus was therefore restricted to adult clamshell suitcases.
How did the court approach the question of design freedom?
PMS alleged the designer of the CRD had relatively little design freedom and the design was only a modest departure from the earlier design for the Rodeo. The court found, however, the CRD represented a substantial departure from the design corpus, in terms of case shape, handles, straps and so on. The designer of the CRD had in fact considerable design freedom (as demonstrated by variations in the design of the Rodeo, the various designs for the Trunki, and designs produced for PMS and third party designs).
It follows the CRD was entitled to a broad scope of protection. This would make it harder for PMS to avoid a finding of infringement.
The court concluded, despite the various differences between the Trunki and Kiddee Case, the overall impression is one of similarity. The comparison with Magmatic’s earlier design, the Rodeo, found the overall impression was different—the Rodeo was squatter, chunkier and less sophisticated than the sleeker and more modern designs of the Kiddee Case and Trunki which shared a prominent ridge and horn like handles and clasps to look like the nose and tail of animal.
How should lawyers advise their clients in light of this judgment?
This case provides helpful summaries of the law relating to prior disclosure and the obscure disclosure exception.
For full version of news analysis on this case, (LexisPSL®IP & IT subscribers), please see:
Design infringement – Trunki case closed
Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd  EWHC 1925 (Pat),  All ER (D) 164 (Jul)
Jessica Stretch, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL IP&IT team
0330 161 1234