AAL Insight: Suitcase saga finally ends

Feb 10, 2018

Written By Jack J Collins, Editor, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

An ongoing lawsuit between UK based Trunki maker Magmatic and Kiddee Case owners PMS International has been closed in favour of Kiddee Case.

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.

Judge Lord Neuberger stated that the court had come to it’s conclusion because the court case was about a design, rather than an idea. Law, and therefore Trunki, had asked for legal protection under the Community Registered Design legislation, which only deals with designs.

"It is a conclusion I have reached with some regret, as the conception of the Trunki, a ride-on wheeled case which looks like an animal, seems to have been both original and clever," the Judge conceded.

Law went on to state that the ruling is one which will have a lasting impact on the world of design and concept creation. "We are devastated and bewildered by this judgement, not just for ourselves but for the huge wave of uncertainty it brings to designers across Britain," he said.

If you have followed the Trunki brand from it’s beginnings, however, this might seem like a case of forewarnings coming true. On Dragon’s Den, where Law tried to launch the product, Peter Jones warned the creator that the design was unprotectable.

Jones said in 2006: “This type of product is not patentable. You think you have something. I tell you, you don't.” There were no investors for Law, because the idea was said to be too easy to copy and improve.

Paul Beverly, who is the director of PMS, has openly stated that he came up with the concept of the Kiddee Case as a result of having seen a Trunki. However, he hailed the ruling as a victory for “fair competition.”

What appears to have been a simple copyright design violation case has evolved to become a ruling which is said to be sending ‘shockwaves’ though British design communities.

It means that in the future, firms will more than likely have to process a number of different protecting methods to try and show that an original design idea is copyright, else they will face similar competition from companies piggybacking off an idea.

Arty Rajendra, a partner at law firm Rouse Legal, told The Guardian that the ruling was an “undoubted blow for UK design and creative industries”, and that “the courts have to strike the right balance between incentivising innovation, while simultaneously promoting fair competition.”

Commercial Insights