Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd [2013] EWHC 1925 (Pat) (11 July 2013)

Magmatic Ltd v PMS International Ltd [2013] EWHC 1925 (Pat) (11 July 2013)

The Kiddee Case produces the same overall impression as the CRD on the informed user, considering the substantial departure of the CRD from the design corpus and the designer's considerable freedom. The Rodeo prior art does not invalidate the CRD as it does not produce the same overall impression and is not sufficiently obscure to trigger the exception. PMS has infringed Magmatic's CRD.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1925 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Magmatic Limited; Defendant: PMS International Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Infringement / High Court Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claim for infringement of Community Registered Design upheld; PMS found to have infringed the CRD.
Legal Topics
Community Registered Design, Design Right, Copyright Infringement, Novelty, Individual Character, Scope of Protection, Obscure Disclosure Exception
Intellectual Property Design Law Copyright Community Registered Design Design Right Copyright Infringement Novelty Individual Character +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magmatic Limited

Claimant

PMS International Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Infringement / High Court Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PMS International infringed Magmatic's Community Registered Design (CRD)
  2. 2 Whether PMS International infringed Magmatic's UK design rights
  3. 3 Whether PMS International infringed Magmatic's copyright in packaging artwork and safety notice

Ratio Decidendi

The Kiddee Case produces the same overall impression as the CRD on the informed user, considering the substantial departure of the CRD from the design corpus and the designer's considerable freedom. The Rodeo prior art does not invalidate the CRD as it does not produce the same overall impression and is not sufficiently obscure to trigger the exception. PMS has infringed Magmatic's CRD.

Court Disposition

Claim for infringement of Community Registered Design upheld; PMS found to have infringed the CRD.

Orders

  • Declaration of infringement of CRD by PMS International Limited
  • Further relief (damages or account of profits) to be determined