After a long battle, Magmatic have finally lost their claim against PMS for infringement of the Trunki registered design for children's ride-on suitcases.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a registered design will not enable you to prevent competitors taking inspiration from your work (or copycatting) if there's a significant difference in the overallimpression given by the copycat product, even though the physical characteristics of the two products are otherwise very similar.
In this case, it was the difference between a horn and an antenna. This brings home the importance in business of understanding that many intellectual property rights are actually quite limited and are far away from the kind of monopoly that a patent might give you.
Supreme Court Justice Lord Neuberger said that Trunki was both original and clever and it was clear that the Kiddee Case had been conceived "as a result of seeing a Trunki ... Unfortunately for Magmatic, however, this appeal is not concerned with an idea or an invention, but with a design."