e scope of the design protection covers all other designs that failed to create a different overall impression to the informed user . Definition of an informed user could be found in the case of Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc , who is a targeted purchaser carrying knowledge of the design corpus (neither a manufacturer nor a seller of the product ), meanwhile, he must be interested in the product itself, showing a high degree of attention when using the product. When accessing the scope of protection under art 10. It is necessary to consider the proximity of the registered design to the design corpus. Recital 14 of the design regulation provides that, a larger scope of protection available to a registered design that is markedly different from the design corpus, in contrast, a narrower scope of protection to designs having very little different to the design corpus. In Procter & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd, Jacob LJ had explained the rationale behind the principle; a new design that is different form any design been made available in the market, creates a greater overall visual impact to those ‘kindred prior art’, so as to create a more significant overall impression, it is less likely the differences between the registered design and the infringing product are deemed to be creating a different overall impression. The infringements are therefore being easier to be sufficed.

The degree of freedom is also vital to the scope of protection. In Dyson Ltd v Vax Ltd , Arnold J states that the scope of protection is broadened when a designer has more degree of freedom, and a narrower scope of protection where there is a little room for new creation. These impediments to the freedom of design could be created by the technical function of the product, imposing specific criteria to the design. Hence, the more unique the registered design is compared to the subsisting products in the market, the greater the scope of protection is.

Relevance of the surface decoration

A major consideration in Magmatic was whether the surface decoration of the product is taken into account when deciding its overall impression. The Supreme Court refused to determine whether the absence of surface decoration was a feature of the Trunki registered design, even if it was the reason the appeal was permitted at the first place. Lord Neuberger decided to leave this issue open, as he thinks a decision of such will not be ‘of much assistance in other cases’ . The Trunki suitcase adopted no graphical designs on its surface. This kind of design had emerged and considered in the case of P&G and Samsung. In P&G, Jacob LJ held that the proper comparison should be made with the shape of the alleged infringement, and it is irrelevant to consider the graphics on the product . Whereas the Samsu