Trunki case may still be open
Following the Court of Appeal's recent decision that the Community Registered Design (CRD) of the Trunki ride-on suitcase was not infringed by its cheaper rival 'Kiddee Case' (reported here), the
Following the Court of Appeal's recent decision that the Community Registered Design (CRD) of the Trunki ride-on suitcase was not infringed by its cheaper rival 'Kiddee Case' (reported here), the parties found themselves back in court last week after failing to agree on the form of the court order in relation to costs. Magmatic also took the opportunity to seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was refused (click here for judgment).
Magmatic (selling the Trunki) accepted that PMS (selling the Kiddee Case) was entitled to its costs of the appeal but the parties were unable to agree an appropriate apportionment. Magmatic contended that while PMS had won in relation to the infringement of the CRD, that was just one part of a wider, more complex set of claims and counterclaims that had been advanced during the proceedings such as copyright infringement, passing off, design validity and unregistered design right infringement. Magmatic said that given it had been successful in its claims for infringement of four unregistered design rights, the court should make an appropriate reduction to PMS' recoverable costs to reflect that. The matter was further complicated by the overall costs of PMS being approximately 50% higher than Magmatic's. The court finally determined that the designer of the 'Kiddee Case' should be regarded as the overall 'winner' and taking into account the various submissions of both parties, to achieve a fair and proportionate result, it held that PMS was entitled to recover 45% of its trial costs.
At the same hearing, the court refused to grant Magmatic permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal did not think it was appropriate in the circumstances - it had reached a different conclusion from that of the first instance judge as to the scope of the CRD and the issue of infringement and that finding was specific to the circumstances of this particular case. The Court of Appeal did not believe it raised any point of general public importance and therefore refused permission.
Following the judgment however, press reports have indicated that Magmatic anticipated this result and has now gone directly to the Supreme Court itself to seek permission to appeal. Clearly Magmatic is not ready to pack its bags just yet….
Magmatic (selling the Trunki) accepted that PMS (selling the Kiddee Case) was entitled to its costs of the appeal but the parties were unable to agree an appropriate apportionment. Magmatic contended that while PMS had won in relation to the infringement of the CRD, that was just one part of a wider, more complex set of claims and counterclaims that had been advanced during the proceedings such as copyright infringement, passing off, design validity and unregistered design right infringement. Magmatic said that given it had been successful in its claims for infringement of four unregistered design rights, the court should make an appropriate reduction to PMS' recoverable costs to reflect that. The matter was further complicated by the overall costs of PMS being approximately 50% higher than Magmatic's. The court finally determined that the designer of the 'Kiddee Case' should be regarded as the overall 'winner' and taking into account the various submissions of both parties, to achieve a fair and proportionate result, it held that PMS was entitled to recover 45% of its trial costs.
At the same hearing, the court refused to grant Magmatic permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal did not think it was appropriate in the circumstances - it had reached a different conclusion from that of the first instance judge as to the scope of the CRD and the issue of infringement and that finding was specific to the circumstances of this particular case. The Court of Appeal did not believe it raised any point of general public importance and therefore refused permission.
Following the judgment however, press reports have indicated that Magmatic anticipated this result and has now gone directly to the Supreme Court itself to seek permission to appeal. Clearly Magmatic is not ready to pack its bags just yet….