In the Court of Appeal’s view, the depiction of wheels and a detachable strap in a contrasting colour to the body of the CRD meant that it contained information about its surface decoration. What does come out from the decision, yet again, is the importance of care in filing design registrations, so as not to limit scope of protection unnecessarily, especially for shape designs. It is therefore often advisable to file an application covering a number of separate designs to particularly protect or stress the most important features of a design. The SC noted that the CADs used in the RCD clearly showed a (non-specific) colour contrast between the body of the case on the one hand and the wheels and the strap on the other.

The overall impression of the CRD was that of a horned animal and this was not given proper weight at first instance. The informed user is deemed to be knowledgeable in the relevant design field and able to make a side-by-side impression. In particular, it is expected to provide clarification on whether the colour contrasts shown in the CRD’s computer-aided drawings do in fact operate to limit the design to a particular style of surface decoration. Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found that it would be natural to infer from the Trunki RCD that the components shown in black (the strap and wheels) were intended to be a different contrasting colour from the body of the Trunki case [see para 52].This case emphasises that design registrations exist to protect the specific aesthetic design of a product and nothing more. Accordingly, I consider that Kitchin LJ was right in concluding that the CRD claimed not merely a specific shape, but a shape in two contrasting colours - one represented as grey and the other as black on the images, and that Arnold J was correspondingly wrong in holding that the CRD was a claim simply for a shape. This Kat suspects that at the time of filing the significance of the darker wheels and strap was not fully appreciated.

The SC agreed with the CoA that the overall impression created by the RCD was that of a horned animal. Reliance on a purported technical effect for inventive step (interpreting G 2/21) The Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision G 2/21 was noted for the abstract criteria it set for relying on post-published evidence to support an inventive step.PMS’s Kiddee Case by contrast gave the impression of an insect with antennae or an animal with ears. Any advantage associated with the proposed reduction in filing fees may well be outweighed by the known difficulties in enforcing these rights, which have been further compounded by today's decision. Despite this, but with considerable sympathy for Magmatic, the SC had to agree with the CoA in finding that the design of Kiddee Case was just too far removed from Magmatic's design registration to constitute an infringement. For example, if the design related to a telephone, the designer is restricted in that the telephone would probably have to have a speaker and a microphone which are an appropriate distance away from one another (ear to mouth).