It also hinted at there being more force in the point where surface decoration had been "positively distracting in nature": then it may have an effect on overall impression.

The “best” or most cost effective strategy for providing design protection for a product will depend very much on the facts of the case and the commercial importance of the product. e. applications that include lots of different designs in them but all filed in one hit on the same day) cost very much less than they used to. had not considered the CRD ‘globally’ and did not have regard to the fact that the CRD was clearly intended to create the impression of a horned animal because of its shape.It is important that the images do not include unnecessary features, such as colour, shading or surface decoration. In that case, the surface decoration of the infringing product was disregarded during the comparison. Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (interpreting G 2/21) The Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision G 2/21 was noted for the abstract criteria it set for relying on post-published evidence to support an inventive step. Accordingly, it is right to bear in mind that an applicant for a design right is entitled, within very broad limits, to submit any images which he chooses.

The registration is based on a set of images of the Trunki that are shaded greyscale CAD drawings showing a strap, the wheels, and strips of the Trunki in a darker shade than the main body. In particular, the judgment is expected to clarify the way that certain design conventions used in CRDs should be interpreted, an issue which has been decisive in a number of important Court of Appeal decisions.The maker of Trunki ride-on suitcases for children has begun presenting its case in the UK’s supreme court in a legal battle with a Hong Kong firm that could have implications for small creative businesses that rely on design rights. And when using design right, how best should you frame your application to maximise the scope of protection? Further, it should consider whether the differences between the Kiddee Case (a product which PMS admitted was at least inspired by the Trunki) and the CRD are sufficient to avoid design infringement.

This unfortunate outcome for Magmatic emphasises the importance of getting the representations, or drawings, for a registered design right.Because the CoA had done so on the correct basis in law, the SC should be reluctant to interfere with the conclusion reached and indeed it would not do so. Trunki’s founder, Rob Law, began the proceedings over a design which he claimed “wilfully ripped off” the original Trunki product, claiming that the Kiddee Case products (which are also degined to look like insects and small animals) infringed on design rights registered by Trunki and Magmatic.