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:


Latest news
Chelsea and José Mourinho
Meat is for men, vegetables are for cows
Nullity design Porsche 911
Online infringement and court competence


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?
Follow Abcor