©-LAW

Is a functional shape eligible for copyright protection under the  InfoSoc Directive ? This, in a nutshell, is the intriguing issue that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been asked to address in  Brompton Bicycle , C-833/18 . As readers might guess, the shape at issue in this case is Brompton's iconic foldable bike, originally created in 1975 and sold in its current form since 1987: This morning, Advocate General (AG) Campos Sánchez-Bordona issued his  Opinion . He advised the Court to rule that, if the shape is  exclusively  dictated by the technical function of the relevant product, then no copyright subsists in it.  Whilst this conclusion appears reasonable and in line with existing CJEU case law, including - most recently - the  Cofemel  decision  [ here ; for a recent application, see  here ] , the Opinion appears to go a bit astray from that, at least in one notable respect (read on)....

IPKat-approved jacquard fabric Yesterday, the  Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (IPEC, a specialist court which is part of the Business and Property Courts of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales) issued what appears to be the first UK decision tackling the implications of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in  Cofemel , C-683/17   [see  here ;  Cofemel  was also awarded the prestigious  Kat-award 'Copyright Decision of the Year 2019' ] . It is the decision in  Response Clothing Ltd v The Edinburgh Woollen Mill Ltd  [2020] EWHC 148 (IPEC) (29 January 2020) . Background The claimant, Response, is a clothing company; the defendant, EWM, is a major retailer of clothing with about 400 stores in the UK. Between 2009 and 2012, Response supplied EWM with ladies tops made of a  jacquard fabric  of a design referred to as a 'wave arrangement'. In 2012, Response attempt...

It just a few months ago that this blog  reported  on the  Opinion  of Advocate General Tanchev in the  important  Sky v SkyKick , C-371/18 case . A referral from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales made by Arnold J (as he then was), the  Sky  case is probably  the most important referral in the EU trade mark field made over the past few years . It asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to clarify: Whether an EU or national trade mark may be declared  wholly  or  partially  invalid  on the ground that some or all of the terms in the specification of goods and services are lacking in sufficient clarity and precision to enable the competent authorities and third parties to determine on the basis of those terms alone the extent of the protection conferred by the trade mark; In case that answer to the question above is in the affirmative, whether a term like  'computer softwa...

The end of 2019 is upon us - a new year (and decade) of IP developments is fast approaching.  Although the IPKat Team is getting some deserved rest these days (it is  well-known  that Kats spend most of their time asleep), it is again the time of The IPKat's Copyright Awards! As it has become tradition, a few (honorary = no cash) prizes are awarded each and every year in a number of categories. For previous editions, see  here ,  here ,  here ,  here ,  here , and  here . So, here we go! Most important copyright decision Cofemel : not just a judgment  about jeans and T-shirts As it has become the norm in the field of copyright, not only have courts become pivotal in defining the scope of protection but, in certain topical instances,  they have also contributed to shaping materially the very foundations of protection.  In the case of the EU, the latter has been surely the case of the Court of Justic...

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...