GIRLY TABLEWARE FOR BLONDES ONLY JURISDICTION REPORT: NETHERLANDS
Michiel Rijsdijk Arnold + Siedsma
‘Blond’ and ‘Blond Amsterdam’ are trademarks of the Dutch company Blond Amsterdam and used for a popular brand of tableware. Tis tableware, consisting of plates, tea cups, sugar bowls, cookie bowls, etc, is decorated with colourful images of hearts, cupcakes, strawberries, sugar lumps, coffee beans, girl figures and handwritten texts. Te typical style of the tableware is known throughout the Netherlands among young, mostly female, consumers.
Apparently, this popularity caused another company, Xenos, to introduce tableware which also depicts colourful hearts, cupcakes and happily chatting girls. Blond was not amused and started interim injunction proceedings, based on copyright infringement and slavish imitation. Te first instance court rejected all Blond’s claims, stating that a certain sphere and style cannot be copyright-protected. It also denied the slavish imitation claim based on the negative consequential affect of the Dutch Copyright Act, and the lack of exceptional circumstances. Blond appealed against this decision, persisting in its claims. On February 28, 2012 the Court of Appeal of Hertogenbosch handed down its decision.
Te court first reviewed the copyright claims. Blond states that Xenos infringes the copyright on seven separate works: females drinking tea, the sugar lump, a coffee bean, a heart, a strawberry, a cupcake and a decorative band. For some of these images, the court decided that they are limited in creative scope and therefore not copyright-protected. For other images, the court decided that though the images are copyright-protected, Xenos’s images do not constitute copyright infringement.
What is leſt is the sugar lump. Xenos’s sugar lump constitutes a copyright infringement of Blond’s copyright-protected sugar lump. However, in view of the non-prominent and frequent reproduction of the sugar lump on the tableware, the court was of the opinion that an injunction would be too extreme. Terefore it did not grant an injunction based on copyright infringement.
Luckily, Blond also based its claims on slavish imitation, and this species of the act of tort was more successful. Te doctrine provides that one is free to imitate, unless one needlessly causes confusion. One causes such confusion when it was reasonably possible to prevent the risk of confusion without impairing the soundness and usability of the product. In this context Blond put forward the style elements and other characteristic elements of its tableware that are also present in Xenos’s tableware.
Unlike in the primary claim of copyright infringement, the separate elements are not compared, but rather the overall product lines, consisting of combinations of drawings, texts and colours. Te court found that the overall impression of the Xenos’s tableware was similar to Blond’s, and Xenos’s did
56 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2012
“THIS DECISION IS ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE POSSIBILITIES THAT A CLAIM BASED ON SLAVISH IMITATION CAN OFFER WHEN CLAIMS BASED ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS FAIL.”
not demonstrate that it had done everything to prevent confusion. Xenos therefore acted illegitimately vis-a-vis Blond and must stop marketing the tableware.
Tis decision, although made in appeal interim injunction proceedings, is another good example of the possibilities that a claim based on slavish imitation can offer when claims based on intellectual property rights fail, or when there is no IP right on which a claim can be based. It is, however, surprising that Blond did not base a copyright claim on the overall composition of the tableware but did put forward the overall composition in the secondary claim of slavish imitation.
We are of the opinion that the composition as a whole can be regarded as copyright-protected and therefore might lead to copyright infringement aſter all. With regard to slavish imitation, we are surprised to see that the risk of confusion was not included in the assessment. We believe that if the lack of such a risk had been put forward by Xenos, a claim based on slavish imitation might have failed as well.
Michiel Rijsdijk is a partner at Arnold + Siedsma. He can be contacted at:
mrijsdijk@arnold-siedsma.com
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76