Copyright also applies to works of applied art. Because trends change rapidly in the garments-/fashion industry, manufacturers often rely on unregistered designs or on copyright to protect their designs. The disadvantage, of course, is that the burden of proof of the copyright lies with the manufacturer, whereas in the case of a registered design, the court assumes this. This plays an important role in, among others, the clothing of designer Nikkie Plessen. »copyright
Dutch TV host Arjan Lubach mercilessly exposed the practices of RUMAG last season. Rumag markets T-shirts with famous quotes translated literally, in ALLCAPS separated by dots instead of spaces. This firm’s owner is quoted claiming that there can be no copyright infringement when translating quotes from others, as this would be gray space. Is this correct or is this really a bullshit story? »copyright
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
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?