The first decision on an appeal to the Appointed Person under a new regime for designs has been issued. The appeal in this first case was against a decision by a hearing officer for the IPO to invalidate two registered designs consisting of a garment with a modified Union flag on the chest, in response to a request from a competitor of the rights owner.
Is this the right angle?
Is this the best filter?
Do I have the legal right to post this content?
While the first two questions may be at the forefront of the mind of social media users, the third is arguably as important as the pressure to push content to followers mounts in a saturated market. It is all too easy to download, screen-shot or take a photo of an image and share it across many platforms, however, taking a laissez-faire attitude to copyright ownership can land social media users in hot water.
Not only is uploading and sharing content protected by copyright a breach of the terms of use of most social media platforms (and could lead to a user’s accounts being suspended or terminated in some cases) but it may also lead to copyright litigation, as Khloe Kardashian recently discovered.
Last week, Xposure Photos UK LTD, an “international celebrity photo agency”, filed proceedings against Ms Kardashian in the Central District Court of California alleging that she had infringed its copyright in an image that was posted to her Instagram® account.[1] The image in question had originally been licensed to The Daily Mail and contained a copyright notice “© XPOSUREPHOTOS.COM”. The version of the image that appeared on Ms Kardashian’s account did not contain this notice nor any acknowledgement of Xposure Photos. The unauthorised removal of the copyright notice attracts 17 US Code § 1202 -1203 which provide the basis for a civil action for such conduct. In addition to seeking an injunction to prevent Ms Kardashian from using the image, Xposure Photos is also seeking US$25,000 in statutory damages as well as any profits resulting from the infringement.
While this is arguably small change for Ms Kardashian (who allegedly earns up to US$250,000 for a sponsored post on her social media sites), once legal costs and any time invested in litigation or negotiating a settlement is considered, it seems a hefty price to pay for failing to obtain an appropriate licence from the copyright owner. It is a timely reminder to social media users to ensure that they have the appropriate rights to the content they intend to use.
By: Jaimie Wolbers
In just a few weeks, Piaggio – the Italian company manufacturing iconic Vespa scooters – obtained a double victory before Italian courts both under the intellectual property and the copyright perspectives.
Yesterday, in a decision that will be welcomed by the fashion industry, the United States Supreme Court ruled that certain design elements of cheerleader uniforms may be eligible for copyright protection. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. The Court held that, “a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.” Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-2 majority opinion, addressing disagreement among lower courts as to the proper test for determining if certain design elements could ever qualify for copyright protection.
This case involved lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes on cheerleader uniforms. In finding that these elements could be covered by copyright, the appeals court below had identified nine different approaches that various courts and the Copyright Office had employed over the years to address “separability.” The appeals court fashioned its own test and found that the design features of Varsity Brands’ cheerleader uniform played no role in the overall function of the article as a cheerleading uniform, and the elements were separable from the utilitarian aspects of the uniform and thus eligible for copyright protection.
The Supreme Court affirmed. Applying § 101 of the Copyright Act, the Court found that the decorations on the uniforms at issue could be identified as having pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities, and the arrangement of the decorations could be placed in another medium (e.g. placed on a painter’s canvas) without replicating the uniforms themselves. Thus, the two-dimensional work of art fixed in the uniform fabric met both the separate-identification and independent-existence requirements of the statute. Importantly, the Court held only that the uniform elements are eligible for protection in concept; now the trial court must determine whether Varsity Brands’ specific lines, chevrons, and shapes are original enough to merit copyright protection.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred in the result, pointing out that the Court did not have to discuss the separability test at all because the designs at issue were not themselves useful articles, but rather standalone, two-dimensional pictorial and graphic works reproduced on a useful article. Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, dissented, arguing that even under the majority’s test, the designs cannot be perceived as separate from the cheerleading uniform.
Thus, although the majority offers some clarity about the proper approach to separability, the dissent demonstrates that analysis may yield divergent results. The decision is likely to be embraced by fashion industry leaders and other garment design stakeholders for its recognition that certain garment design elements may be protectable under the Copyright Act. K&L Gates will continue to monitor litigation in this area and provide updates.
A link to the opinion can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-866_0971.pdf
By: David Byer, John Cotter, Shamus Hyland and Eric Lee
In a ruling on 1 September 2016, the EU General Court invalidated a ruling of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Board of Appeal in a case begun by a submission for the registration of a trademark showing an animal from the cat family leaping. The applicant was the Italian company Gemma Group Srl with its registered office in Cesarola Ausa. An objection was lodged by Puma SE with its registered office in Herzogenaurach, Germany.
The applicant submitted the following graphic mark for registration:
for machines for processing wood, aluminum, and PCV.
The plaintiff based its argumentation on two earlier international trademarks:
Those marks were registered for numerous types of goods in general use, including bags, clothing, accessories, footwear, toys, and sports equipment.
In addition, Puma SE raised the argument of the renown of its marks in all EU member states and for all goods covered by the registration. The objection was based mainly on the renown of those marks. In accordance with Article 8 paragraph 5 of Regulation No. 207/2009, a trademark similar to an earlier renowned mark is not registered if the unjustified use of that mark would result in undue benefits being reaped, or would harm the distinctiveness or renown of the earlier mark.
Victoria’s Supreme Court of Appeal has granted Apple and Pear Australia Limited’s (APAL) appeal in relation to their dispute with Pink Lady America LLC (PLA) over the refreshed “flowing heart” Pink Lady composite trade mark used in association with everyone’s favourite apple variety.[1],[2]
The dispute brought to light a number of crunchy commercial contract issues relating to agreements between APAL, PLA and the International Pink Lady Alliance (Alliance) that dealt with rights to particular trade marks registered in Chile (one of the key growing regions for the Cripps Pink and Rosy Glow apple varieties which are sold under the “Pink Lady” brand). PLA left the Alliance in June 2010.
The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (CAFC) recently vacated a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that had ordered the cancelation of JobDiva’s JOBDIVA service marks for personnel placement and recruitment services on the basis of abandonment. In re Jobdiva, Inc., No. 2015-1960, 2016 WL 7187434 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2016).
JobDiva’s software provides a database of employment applications for hiring managers to fill job openings. The software uses automated “harvesters” to find job candidates, reviews resumes, and helps hiring managers directly communicate with job candidates. The product is often delivered on a software-as-a-service or “SaaS” model. With the SaaS format, customers access JobDiva software remotely via the internet, rather than through software downloaded on a personal computer.
JobDiva initially petitioned to cancel the registration for JOBVITE service marks owned by Jobvite, Inc., alleging a likelihood of confusion. But Jobvite counterclaimed and petitioned to cancel JobDiva’s marks, arguing that JobDiva did not actually perform personnel placement and recruitment services, but merely used its marks on software offerings. A registration may be cancelled for abandonment if the mark has not been used for the goods or services specified in the registration. The TTAB agreed with Jobvite, appearing to apply a bright-line rule that required JobDiva to show “it performed the ‘personnel placement and recruitment’ services in a way other than having its software perform those services.”
A three-person panel of the CAFC disagreed. It acknowledged that “the line between services and products sometimes blurs.” But “[e]ven though a service may be performed by a company’s software, the company may well be rendering a service.” To determine whether a mark is used in connection with services described in a registration, a key consideration is user perception. Thus, the ultimate question is whether purchasers would perceive JobDiva’s marks to identify personnel placement and recruitment services, even if the software performs each step of the service. Because consumer perception is a fact-based inquiry determined on a case-by-case basis, and the TTAB applied the wrong legal standard, the opinion below was vacated and remanded. This CAFC opinion rejects a rigid test and states that “careful analysis is required to determine whether web-based offerings, like those JobDiva provides, are products or services….” Rather, a more nuanced assessment, based on consumer perception must be applied. U.S. trademark practitioners should consider this approach in crafting appropriate goods and services and formulating enforcement strategies.
By: David Byer and Shamus Hyland
The CAFC opinion can be found here.
After the CJEU decision in case C-30/15 P, fans of three-dimensional trade marks will be wondering if the opportunity to register them is as straightforward as it appears from the recent reform of the Regulation No. 207/2009.
For 10 years, Simba Toys and Seven Towns have been involved in the Rubik’s cube saga, which began in 1999, when the three-dimensional sign reproducing the popular Hungarian toy was registered as a Community trade mark.
The application for a declaration of invalidity filed in 2006 by Simba Toys was based mainly on the infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94, which prevents a trade mark consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result to be registered.
The EUIPO Cancellation Division as well as the Board of Appeal and the General Court rejected the arguments of the German firm on the grounds that the essential characteristics of the sign at issue are a cube and a grid structure on each surface of the cube and that they do not perform any technical function.
Hence, the appellant’s argument was rejected because the rotating capability of the lattices did not result from the shape presented, but from the invisible internal mechanism which was not part of the graphical representation filed in the trade mark application.
As often happens, the above decisions have been overturned by the CJEU. In particular, the approach of the lower courts was found to be too narrow as they did not take into account the additional elements relating to the function of the actual goods in question.
Lastly, the court held that not taking into account the rotating capability of the cube would extend the trade mark protection to any other kind of puzzle with a similar shape. On the other hand, the technical function behind the cube falls within the scope of Article 7(1)(e)(ii), which precludes the granting of a permanent monopoly on technical solutions. Therefore, in this case it would be more appropriate to consider a patent protection as it has a limited life unlike trademarks.
In conclusion, while the Rubik brand will continue to ensure its exclusivity through other trademarks, copyright, passing off and unfair competition protection, this case made it clear that an effective access to the registration of unconventional trade marks remains as uncertain as the interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii).
By: Serena Totino and Michał Ziółkowski
A unanimous appeal judgment handed down by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia earlier this year, signals the importance of trade mark owners exercising “control” over use of their trade mark by licensees, or risk cancellation of the trade mark for non-use.
It is very common for the trade mark owner not to be the actual user of the trade mark. Related parties within the same corporate group may have different functions of ownership or use, or local distributors/licensees may be appointed to use a trade mark owned by a foreign brand owner.
“Fashion has always been a repetition of ideas, but what makes it new is the way you put it together.” – Carolina Herrera
Welcome to the latest edition of Fashion Law, this edition touches on issues that demonstrate the impact of world events and technological changes on all businesses.
Fashion Law gives you the latest updates on legal issues affecting the fashion industry.
Please click here to read the Spring/Summer 2016 edition of Fashion Law.
Contact: Lisa Egan
Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.