Shnuggle v Munchkin: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Jane Cornwell

Shnuggle v Munchkin: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

Comments on Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin Inc (IPEC) on whether a design for a baby bath infringed Registered Community designs and unregistered design right. Considers whether, despite clear similarities, the differences were sufficient to create a different overall impression, discusses the tactical pleading of the unregistered design right claims and notes issues requiring clarification, including the impact of reform of the definition of "design".

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	255-262
Number of pages	8
Journal	European Intellectual Property Review
Volume	42
Issue number	4
Publication status	Published - 1 Apr 2020

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

copying
designs
infringement
originality
registered community designs
unregistered design rights
validity

Access to Document

CornwellEIPR2020SchnuggleVMunchkinAccepted author manuscript, 264 KBLicence: Creative Commons: Attribution Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC)

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Cosi/SignOn?redirectTo=%2fDocument%2fI35B2C170697C11EAA748CA9C01539BB4%2fView%2fFullText.html%3fskipAnonymous%3dtrue%26transitionType%3dDefault%26contextData%3d(sc.Default)%26firstPage%3dtrue&sponsortoken=060520050039e403d1abde8d49de9e6e42b66bd75c8d

Cite this

Cornwell, J. (2020). Shnuggle v Munchkin: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! European Intellectual Property Review, 42(4), 255-262. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Cosi/SignOn?redirectTo=%2fDocument%2fI35B2C170697C11EAA748CA9C01539BB4%2fView%2fFullText.html%3fskipAnonymous%3dtrue%26transitionType%3dDefault%26contextData%3d(sc.Default)%26firstPage%3dtrue&sponsortoken=060520050039e403d1abde8d49de9e6e42b66bd75c8d

@article{ed0ea876cb2840f8b7475386548621ca,

title = "Shnuggle v Munchkin: Don{\textquoteright}t throw the baby out with the bathwater!",

abstract = "Comments on Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin Inc (IPEC) on whether a design for a baby bath infringed Registered Community designs and unregistered design right. Considers whether, despite clear similarities, the differences were sufficient to create a different overall impression, discusses the tactical pleading of the unregistered design right claims and notes issues requiring clarification, including the impact of reform of the definition of {"}design{"}.",

keywords = "copying, designs, infringement, originality, registered community designs, unregistered design rights, validity",

author = "Jane Cornwell",

year = "2020",

month = apr,

day = "1",

language = "English",

volume = "42",

pages = "255--262",

journal = "European Intellectual Property Review",

issn = "0142-0461",

publisher = "Sweet & Maxwell",

number = "4",

}

Cornwell, J 2020, 'Shnuggle v Munchkin: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!', European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 255-262. <https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Cosi/SignOn?redirectTo=%2fDocument%2fI35B2C170697C11EAA748CA9C01539BB4%2fView%2fFullText.html%3fskipAnonymous%3dtrue%26transitionType%3dDefault%26contextData%3d(sc.Default)%26firstPage%3dtrue&sponsortoken=060520050039e403d1abde8d49de9e6e42b66bd75c8d>

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shnuggle v Munchkin

T2 - Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!

AU - Cornwell, Jane

PY - 2020/4/1

Y1 - 2020/4/1

N2 - Comments on Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin Inc (IPEC) on whether a design for a baby bath infringed Registered Community designs and unregistered design right. Considers whether, despite clear similarities, the differences were sufficient to create a different overall impression, discusses the tactical pleading of the unregistered design right claims and notes issues requiring clarification, including the impact of reform of the definition of "design".

AB - Comments on Shnuggle Ltd v Munchkin Inc (IPEC) on whether a design for a baby bath infringed Registered Community designs and unregistered design right. Considers whether, despite clear similarities, the differences were sufficient to create a different overall impression, discusses the tactical pleading of the unregistered design right claims and notes issues requiring clarification, including the impact of reform of the definition of "design".

KW - copying

KW - designs

KW - infringement

KW - originality

KW - registered community designs

KW - unregistered design rights

KW - validity

M3 - Article

SN - 0142-0461

VL - 42

SP - 255

EP - 262

JO - European Intellectual Property Review

JF - European Intellectual Property Review

IS - 4

ER -