MONET DESIGN cannot be a trademark in Japan because of Claude Monet

Trademarks for names of famous historical persons can be really challenging for protection.

This was the case of a trademark application for the following sign in Japan for classes 16, 20, 25, 27, 35, 41, 42, and 45:

Against this application, an opposition was filed by the French organization ACADEMIE DES BEAUX-ARTS, owner of an international trademark for “CLAUDE MONET”.

The gound was article 4(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law in Japan which prohibits registration of signs likely to cause damage to the social and public interest and disrupt the order of fair competition. This covers the registration of names of popular or historical persons if some requirements are met.

According to the Japan Patent Office consumers in the country will recognize the word MONET in the mark applied for as one related to the famous French painter Claude Monet. ACADEMIE DES BEAUX-ARTS manages actively the property and paintings of Claude Monet which represents a cultural heritage for entire France.

From that perspective, the opposition was upheld.

Source:  Masaki Mikami – Marks IP Law Firm.

Advertisement

Paintings and watches – a dispute from Denmark

The Court in Denmark has ruled in a case concerning a copyrightable work transformed into another work. The case at hand focus our attention on the following painting by artist Tel R:

tr293_paris-chic_2017.jpg

This painting has been purchased for $90 000 by Dann Thorleifsson and Arne Solmunde Leivsgarð, founders of the watch manufacturer company Letho.

They launched a campaign where the winners can order watches, which dials are made of small painting parts.

According to the artist, this was a completely new way of using of his painting that transforms the original work. He claimed that copyright permission for such use was needed.

The Letho’s position was that in this case there was a destruction of the work which according to the Danish law does not constitute copyright infringement.

The court ruled that there was a copyright infringement because the painting was made available to the public in a changed form, which requires copyright permission.

Source: WIPR.