Copyrights- Compensation according to Photographer’s Federation

Fortuna has a website with information on boat trips. On one of the pages a picture is shown of Volendam, comparable with the picture below, without a notification of who the photographer is. An intern downloaded the picture from the internet. The photographer is Van Loo, a professional photographer. When he sees the picture on the website, he writes a letter to Fortuna seeking a settlement, while claiming three times the usual amount in damages. The first time for the use of the photo, another time for payment after the fact and a final time for not presenting his name on the picture. (This is obligatory according to the Photographer’s Federation’s terms of delivery)

Fortuna removes the picture, but does act on the proposal. A law case follows, in which the judge sides with Van Loo. It did not matter that an intern placed the photo online, a professional company has the obligation to check who made the photo. Fortuna also has to pay the compensation claimed by Van Loo, as well as the largest part of his legal expenses.

copyright



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
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
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?