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
Scotch & Soda sells down jackets since 2012. When Esprit launches a similar jacket in 2015, Scotch protests, claiming its copyrights (No European design was timely filed). Esprit stops the sale in the Netherlands and is willing to pay for the damages, but not for the whole European Union. »copyright
An idea itself cannot be protected, only its implementation can. The shape of a product can be protected by copyrights or design rights. If these rights are not available, in the Netherlands one can rely on the regime of unfair competition to protect the shapes of its products. Especially in the case of counterfeiting this ground has been invoked on a regular base. However, what if a third party, by coincidence, develops the same idea independently? »copyright
In 2012, Trine Anderson designs the Wire Basket. She created this design as an employee of the firm Ferm Living. In the Netherlands the copyrights belong to the company if the products have been made by employees (as part of their job). Many (daily used) products can be protected by copyrights. However, if no possible creative choices have been made (as the shape is too basic), the design cannot be protected. The Burly Basket Round, introduced by the company Lifestyle, has a great resemblance to the Wire Basket. This raises the question if the Burly Basket Round is an infringement of the copyrights of Ferm Living. Lifestyle states that, due to the trivial and functional shape of the Wire Basket Round, no Intellectual property claims can be made. »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?