header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A hard case

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
16 May 2016 / Emily McClure , Alastair Shaw
Issue: 7699 / Categories: Features , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail
nlj_7699_mcclure

The Supreme Court rules on European design law for first time, Alastair Shaw & Emily McClure report

The Trunki range of ride-on suitcases for young children has been enormously successful since they were first marketed in 2004. Magmatic Ltd (Magmatic), the owners of the registered Community design for the Trunki ride-on suitcase (the Trunki RCD), estimate that in 2011 approximately 20% of all three to six year olds in the UK had one.

PMS International Ltd (PMS), a manufacturer in the discount toy sector of the market, recognised the Trunki's qualities and also spotted a potential gap in the market for a discount version. In 2012, PMS started to sell their own range of ride-on suitcases, which they called the Kiddee Case.

High Court decision 

Magmatic sued PMS for infringement of the Trunki RCD, as well as for infringement of its unregistered design rights in the Trunki design, and copyright in the artwork for its packaging.

In July 2013, the High Court ruled that the Kiddee Case did infringe the Trunki

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll