Copyright does not only apply to Art with a capital “A”. Products of applied art are also often seen as a creation. If this is the case, then a work is protected by copyright and slavishly copying it is not really sensible. »copyright
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. »copyright
Copyright does not only apply to art with the capital A. Also daily used articles are covered by its protection. However, the product (a work) must be an original creation. In short, creative choices have to be made. If another company launches a very similar product, this can be a copyright infringement. »copyright
In 1974 Erno Rubik develops a 3D puzzle, a cube with 6 coloured surfaces. The mechanism is protected by a Hungarian patent. Each infringement of the invention can be prevented in this way, regardless of the print on its surfaces. Only after some years the cube becomes a success. Soon all kinds of varieties appear on the market, like the Sudoku Cube and the Kamasutra Cube. Rubik wants to act against these free riders, but how? The patent is already expired. »copyright
It is common knowledge that fame and fortune has its price. So, what about the privacy protection of ordinary people? As a rule, pictures of persons (with the exception of ordered portraits) can be used freely to a certain extent. The Supreme Court in the Netherlands has previously ruled that also ordinary people are entitled to protection, if they are being depicted for commercial purposes, as can be concluded from its decision in the IT’s Disco dancer case. The audience might think that the person in question authorized the use of the picture and/or supports the campaign. This protection is often in conflict with the corporate freedom of speech. The question which of the two prevails is being considered in the Schiphol Picture case. »copyright
MENTOS has been selling chewing gum under the name MENTOS PURE FRESH for several years. In order to protect her rights MENTOS has registered the following trademarks: the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH, the logo MENTOS PURE FRESH 3 and a figurative depiction of the word PURE.
Defendant sells chewing gum under the trademark DENTYNE PURE and has registered its logo as a trademark.
Infringement or not?