Commissioned drawing of Santa Claus & copyrights

A professional illustrator is commissioned by a Dutch broadcasting company to make a silhouette drawing of a Santa-Claus figure seated on horseback. A few years later, this image (be it mirrored or not) finds its way onto gift-wrapping paper (beside other drawings). The wrapping paper can be purchased online. The vendor also claims having the copyrights on this design. Because the image was used without permission and because of the unjust copyright claim, this forms an infringement of the copyright and personality rights of the original creator. The damage is estimated at € 5.000, -. So far it’s a simple / clear case.

However, the paper vendor had itself commissioned a design studio to make these designs (costing €600, - per design). For that reason, the damages claim is transferred onwards to the design studio. Is that right? The judge finds it to be. The paper vendor was entitled to assume that the designs could be used freely, not infringing on the rights of third parties. The design studio was immediately informed when the illustrator first reported and should have taken action in order to prevent the case from escalating. As a consequence: the design studio has to pay over € 10,000 in compensation for unauthorized use and litigation costs. Source image: IE-Forum.nl

copyright



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?