Magmatic Ltd. v. PMS International Group Plc
United Kingdom Supreme Court
[2016] UKSC 12, [2016] RPC 11 (2016)
- Written by Margot Parmenter, JD
Facts
In 1998, the founder of Magmatic Ltd. (plaintiff) designed a children’s ride-on suitcase that looked like a small, horned animal. In 2003, Magmatic registered this design as a community registered design (CRD) in the European Union (EU). The design was represented by three-dimensional images created with computer-assisted design (CAD) software. The images were in grayscale, featuring a gray body with contrasting black design elements. PMS International Group Plc (PMS) (defendant) imported into and sold in the EU a similar suitcase called a Kiddee Case. Kiddee Cases had the same basic shape as Magmatic’s CRD; however, they looked more like particular animals, with, for instance, additional coloring and antennae instead of horn-like protuberances. In 2013, Magmatic sued PMS for infringing its CRD. The court of first instance concluded that Magmatic’s CRD was for a horned-animal-shaped suitcase, and found that the Kiddee Case, having the same shape, infringed it. PMS appealed, and the court of appeal found that the lower court had erred by circumscribing its reading of the CRD’s overall impression to its shape. The court of appeal expanded the overall impression to include shape and coloring, and it overturned the lower court on infringement. Magmatic appealed to the United Kingdom Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Neuberger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.