Copyright on an old chair?

Plaintiff makes furniture made of glass fiber and polyethyleen and is the maker of the Ball Chair (designed in 1998(. Ramblaz produces promotion articles and at the request of a brewery a char that looks very much like the Ball Chair. When Ramblaz is confronted by the designer he does not deny the copying, but claims that there are no copyrights, enabling him to freely copy the chair.An object only receives copyright protection if it is original, and an independent intellectual creation. Which defendant claims it is not since there is an older chair made by Eero Aarnio in 1968, which also features a ball.

The court disagrees with this stance. In designing the Ball Chair the designer obviously was inspired by the current trends of the 1960s (furniture in spherical shapes). This is not a problem because styles cannot be claimed. Plaintiff has made several artistic choices when designing the Ball Chair, which make the chair entirely different from the already existing Pastil Chair. The Ball Chair is therefore protected by copyright and the infringement is assumed. The court decides that the damage is € 31,000.-.

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?