Intellectual Property Law

ORDER THE PAPER NOW!

In the context of PMS International v. Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12, critically discuss the scope of protection of a registered design in the UK by referring to recent relevant legislative and judicial developments and argue whether rights granted to UK designers to incentivise innovation is adequately balanced with the rights of consumers for public accessibility.

The following information was discussed in the class by the lecturer

* Please Use the Intellectual Property Law (4th Edition) textbook by Lionel Bently & Brad Sherman [Oxford University Press] for the guideline to writing the essay and basic understanding.
* Also refer to the slides from Lecture 10 and 11 for an understanding of the essay
* This essay is not only about the Magmatic case but also include other relevant judicial developments
* Be sure to answer the question.
* Could you please state the paragraph number of the case when you reference to a part from the Magmatic case in your footnotes. This was a request by the lecturer. Thank you
* Discuss the vast amount of rights given to them
* Question of balancing
Exp : Dyson case, only that specific design, stopping the users (balance the right between the users and the designers )
* Legislature? How balanced is this situation?
* Refer to the vast number of cases (by recent the lecturer means any relevant cases and it doesn’t have to be very recent) – it just has to be relevant
– Start it off with case of Magmatic
* Trunki the case, treated as an innovative design, why is it Trunki not actually protected by the case, they design the case having inspired by the Trunki.
¥ In the context of the case so not only about the Magmatic case
¥ In PMS International v. Magmatic Limited [2016] UKSC 12, the Supreme Court observed that the conception of the “innovative design” for Trunki, a ride-on children’s wheeled suitcase which resembled animals with horns, “seems to have been both original and clever”; “won numerous [design] awards” and “has been a significant commercial success.”
¥ Yet, the Court did not protect the commercial interests of Magmatic, the owner of the suitcase’s designs protected as Community Registered Design, from PMS International’s Kiddee Case though the latter was acknowledged to be inspired by Trunki’s design.
¥ Talk about the Balancing issue as to whether the rights of the designer is balanced with the right of the user
¥ Recent judicial development – not only magmatic, ensure that reffered to the vast number of cases
¥ Even the magmatic case where trunki – the suitcase was treated as an innovative design that was original, clever and why is not exactly protected by the court? They said the cases had been inspired by the trunki suitcase.
¥ Not in relation to unregistered design (talk briefly but not too far because no need to talk about it much)
¥ Ensure that have understood and included :-

– Justification for registered design rights protection

– Scope of protection of a registered design in the UK
– Refer to recent relevant legislative and judicial developments
– Is there sufficient clarity and certainty in the rights and the boundaries of these rights – as granted by the law for registered designs
– Argue whether rights granted to UK designers to incentivise innovation is adequately balanced with the rights of consumers for public accessibility (dealing with the justification for the grant of registered design rights). If yes – why? If no – why?

Importantly, could you also include the ones below:-

– Argue whether rights granted to UK designers to incentivise innovation is adequately balanced with the rights of consumers for public accessibility (dealing with the justification for the grant of registered design rights). If yes – why? If no – why? It will be good if the conclusion clearly states it too with relevant authorities to support.

ORDER THE PAPER NOW!