Ban on wave shaped shoe display

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.

MVSA, an architects office, designs a shoe display wall for Shoebaloo. A vertical surface from the ceiling to the floor, constructed from wave shaped layers of wall panels with the same thickness. By altering the wave shape, plateaus on which a shoe can be placed are created. This is done with translucent materials, so that the shoe can be illuminated from underneath.

When Invert opens a similarly decorated store in Antwerp, MVSA objects. The question that arises is: is copyright applicable, since playing with wavy shapes may be just a trend and this was already applied in other buildings?

Court seems to thinks it is. Many creative choices were made with this design. The interior of Invert has copied the characteristic features of the design. The wall is constructed in the same way, with the same waves, the same thickness and illumination from underneath.

Regarding the question of trend / style: the implementation of MVSA is clearly original. Conclusion: the shop layout must be removed within three months and Invert is ordered to pay damages as compensation for the loss in license fees (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?