Magmatic v PMS International [2016] UKSC 12
Background
The Supreme Court was required to considered the scope of protection of the design afforded to Magmatic, manufacturers of “Trunki” the ride-on suitcase.
Magmatic argued infringement of their Community Registered Design by PMS International and their “Kiddee”, and their similar ride-on suitcase.
In the first instance, Magmatic was successful in their claim that the “Kiddee” had in fact infringed the design rights of the “Trunki”. The key issues in consideration of infringement in this matter was the extent to which surface decoration plays in protecting a design and whether the overall impression it creates is different in comparison. It was held that the CRD was only intended to protect the shape and that any surface decoration could be ignored.
Click here for more details...
Contact Details:
Nath Solicitors Limited
4/4a Bloomsbury Square,
London, WC1A 2RP
Tel: 02036705540
Email: shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk
Web: http://www.nathsolicitors.co.uk/
Background
The Supreme Court was required to considered the scope of protection of the design afforded to Magmatic, manufacturers of “Trunki” the ride-on suitcase.
Magmatic argued infringement of their Community Registered Design by PMS International and their “Kiddee”, and their similar ride-on suitcase.
In the first instance, Magmatic was successful in their claim that the “Kiddee” had in fact infringed the design rights of the “Trunki”. The key issues in consideration of infringement in this matter was the extent to which surface decoration plays in protecting a design and whether the overall impression it creates is different in comparison. It was held that the CRD was only intended to protect the shape and that any surface decoration could be ignored.
Click here for more details...
Contact Details:
Nath Solicitors Limited
4/4a Bloomsbury Square,
London, WC1A 2RP
Tel: 02036705540
Email: shubha@nathsolicitors.co.uk
Web: http://www.nathsolicitors.co.uk/
No comments:
Post a Comment