Louis Vuitton – Long live freedom of expression

Ever since 2008 when Danish artist Nadia Plesner designed a T-shirt with an African child on it holding a Louis Vuitton-like bag in her hand, there has been a fight with Louis Vuitton. In 2008 the T shirt was prohibited in France.   

This year the fight flared up again because the image resurfaced on a painting: “Darfurnica”. A contemporary version of Picasso's Guernica, that must be seen as an indictment of the (Western) World. The humanitarian disaster in Darfur is symbolized by the thin African child with the hotly debated bag on her arm. To prevent abuse and to tackle counterfeiting Louis Vuitton has registered the design of the bag in the European register. Louis Vuitton was shocked by the action and started a procedure which resulted in an immediate prohibition with a penalty of € 5,000 per day. The artist objected, however. As an artist, freedom of expression should still prevail over the design rights from the manufacturer. This is a clash between two fundamental rights, but the Judge decided that free speech should prevail. The earlier decision was reversed completely, including all penalties.
 

design-law



Latest news
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Competitor registers domain name
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?