©-LAW

 A little over a year ago, The IPKat  reported   on the then fresh decision of the Paris Court of Appeal, which had upheld the decision at first instance in a copyright infringement case originally brought by the estate of photographer  Jean-François Bauret  against the well-known (also to copyright litigators) US artist  Jeff Koons  and the  Centre Pompidou . The news has reached this blog that  another copyright decision  has recently been rendered against Koons. Background The case is once again one of copyright infringement. It was originally brought by artist and photographer Franck Davidovici and concerned the alleged reproduction of his work  Fait d’Hiver , which he realized as a freelance artist for a 1984 Naf Naf advertisement, in Koons’s 1988 porcelain work, also titled  Fait d'Hiver . Davidovici's  Fait d'Hiver Koons's  Fait d'Hiver Koons’s work, which is part of the  Banality  series  (one w...

In late February, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its long-awaited  [the  Opinion  of Advocate General (AG) Bobek, on which see  here , had been released in July 2019]  judgment in  Constantin Film , C-240/18 P , aka the  Fack Ju Göhte  case concerning the interpretation of the morality absolute ground in EU trade mark (EUTM) law. The decision is both interesting and important for a number of reasons, including trade mark law, the role of freedom of expression, and also ... copyright.  Let’s see, first, what happened and, then, what the implications of the ruling are. Background Can the sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’, which is also the name of a  successful German comedy  (followed by two sequels) be registered as an EUTM? Things have not proved easy for this application, initially filed in 2015 for a variety of goods and services in various classes under the  previous Regulation   [t...

Last week, the Paris Court Appeal ruled ( decision No 152/2019 ) in favour of the estate of late French photographer  Jean-François Bauret  in proceedings brought against,  inter alia , US artist  Jeff Koons  (an artist who, as readers will know, has been sued a  few  times for copyright infringement: see, eg,  here ,  here , and  here ).  The action related to the unauthorized reproduction of a photograph (Bauret’s ‘Enfants’, shown below on the left hand side) in a sculpture (Koons's ‘Naked’, below on the right hand side).  'Enfants' (L) and 'Naked' (R) The defendants had advanced a number of arguments, including that:  ‘Enfants’ is not original;  even if it was, ‘Naked’, would not incorporate any original elements thereof;  even if  prima facie  infringement was established, freedom of the arts and parody would prevail over copyright. The court rejected them all. Let’s see what h...

Beyoncé's  Drunk in Love Would you think that products carrying the word FEYONCÉ are sponsored by or affiliated with famous singer Beyoncé, or blur the distinctiveness of her mark?  This is the question at the centr e of  Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, et al., v.  Feyoncé, Inc. et al. ,  16-CV-2532 (AJN) . The facts The defendants started selling merchandise using the brand name FEYONCÉ, as well as some phrases from Beyoncé's songs. Their products were targeted at the engaged to be married ... that is fiancés. The items were sold through the website feyonceshop.com, as well as etsy.com. The defendants had even tried to obtain US trade mark registrations, but the USPTO refused them on grounds of confusing similarities with the registered BEYONCÉ trade mark. Beyoncé and the entity that owns (lots of) her registered trade marks, BGK Trademark Holdings, brought proceedings against them for:  Federal Trademark Infringement, ex ...

One of Malka's Flair photographs A few days ago this blog  reported  on an interesting  decision  of the Swedish Supreme Court that held that unauthorized 'appropriation' of a substantial part of a photograph for use in a painting did not amount to copyright infringement, as the meaning of the defendant's work was different from the original work. A few days ago, also a French court (Versailles Court of Appeal) had the opportunity to decide a case ( Malka v Klasen , RG No  15/06029,  16 March 2018 ) with a similar factual background.  Unlike the Swedish Supreme Court, the Versailles Court of Appeal held that the defendant had  infringed  the claimant's copyright. It found that the defendant could neither invoke the parody defence under French copyright law nor freedom of (artistic) expression under the  European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) . Let's see what happened. Background Photographer Alix Malka ...