Humour or cease and desist letter? Briliant Ikea campaign to act against infringement Balenciaga bag

During Balenciaga’s spring show, all of a sudden an oversized bag is shown on the catwalk which very much resembles the famous cobalt blue Ikea bag, designed by Marianne and Knut Hagberg. However, the shown bag is made of leather and has a zipper. Apart from that, the bag only costs 2.145 dollars. Ikea could invoke its copyrights on the design (which apparently has not been registered as a design right). The shape of common day to day products are protected by copyright, if they can be considered as intellectual creations, where the designer made personal choices. So legal action is possible in this case, but is it the smart thing to do?

Ikea chooses another path, humour. In our opinion, a brilliant move that goes viral and gains overall sympathy among the public. The Swedish marketing company ACNE came with the idea of an online action: the four best tips how to reveal the original Ikea bag (among others of course the price, the original costs only 0,99 dollars)
A legal action might be tempting in case of infringement, but a humorous reaction might be a better alternative. Especially if the targeted audience is completely different, or in the case of social media expressions. When the positive and funny reaction goes viral, more goodwill and advantages will be gained for the company than by a lawsuit. (Source image: ACNE website.)

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?