The commercial success of a fashion item does not automatically entail recognition of copyright protection (in the absence of proof of creativity and artistic value)

Gaia Bellomo - Associate

Legal protection of fashion designers’ creations counts several means: from unfair competition to design protection, shape marks, to the protection offered by copyright law (L. No. 633/1941): these instruments offer different kinds of protection and can be used only if specific requirements are met, which must always prooved.

It is common in this field seeing fashion labels trying to "dress up" their products with a variety of intellectual property titles, registering them, for example, as shape marks or as industrial design, in order to increase the level of protection against possible imitations.

However, although protection by registration of intellectual property rights in the fashion industry is particularly widespread, the temporary nature of the rights conferred by registration may be an obstacle to the protectability of garments or accessories when their commercial success is particularly long-lasting: in these cases, in order to have access to protection extended in time and which goes beyond the formalities required for registration, it is necessary to prove not only the particular liking of the public, but also the creativity and artistic value of the product to aim to copyright protection.

An emblematic case of the possible coexistence of several levels of protection for fashion items and of the difficulties connected to the proof of the creativity and artistic value of a product aiming to be considered as copyrighetd is the one recently dealt with by the Court of Milan.

The case concerned the marketing of bags imitating the famous "Le Pliage" bag by Longchamp, protected by two European Union three-dimensional trademark registrations claiming its peculiar trapezoidal shape, and also characterised by the combination of further original elements, such as the rounded flap, the tubular handles and the contrast in colour and materials between the nylon and leather elements.

The plaintiff claimed that the "Le Pliage" bag model was created in 1993 and has been still marketed worldwide through more than 1,500 sales outlets and also online and requested protection against imitations, invoking not only the protection provided for on the basis of three-dimensional trade mark registrations (pursuant to articles 2 and 20 C.P.I. and art.9 EU Reg. no. 2017/1001), but also the violation of the rights of the author and of the principles protecting fair competition on the market (art. 2598 c.c.).

The Court first of all recognised the infringement of the plaintiff's three-dimensional European trademarks insofar as it was established not only their distinctive capacity due to the manner of use and presentation of the trademark itself and the information and suggestions conveyed through advertising and the perception that the shape determines on the consumer public, but also the taking over, by the imitative bags, of all the distinctive elements of the "Le Pliage" model.

With regard to the invoked copyright protection, referring to its own case law on this point, the judgment ruled that it was not possible to identify in this case the actual existence of the artistic character necessary for the form of the bag to enjoy such protection.

The Judges found that, apart from the undeniable commercial success gained on the market, the plaintiff had not enclosed the elements that should have confirmed the presence of an artistic value in the creation of the external appearance of the bag model in question.

In other words, there was no evidence at all of the requirements of creativity and artistic value which presuppose the applicability of Art. 2.10 of the Copyright Act.

As is well known, artistic value can be inferred from a series of objective parameters, such as the recognition by cultural and institutional circles of the existence of aesthetic and artistic qualities, exposure in exhibitions or museums, publication in specialist magazines, the awarding of prizes, the acquisition of a market value so high as to transcend that linked solely to its functionality or the creation by a well-known artist and, in the absence of evidence, it is not possible to have access to the protection provided for by the law on copyright.

Italian version

• Intellectual Property

• Fashion Law

The Italian Supreme Court recognizes the Burberry Check as a famous trademark.

Laura Bussoli - Senior Counsel

With the recent judgement no. 576/2020, the Supreme Court has accepted the reasons of the English fashion house Burberry in the case for counterfeiting its - now we can say it - "famous" brand with an ornamental motif.

In the contested decision, the judges of the Court of Appeal of Rome had followed a "bizarre" argumentative procedure in order to exclude the appeal of the crime of infringement of the above mentioned trademark: and in fact, if on the one hand the appeal judge had established - unlike the judge of first instance - that it was not necessary for the purpose of infringing the penal rules on counterfeiting, that the words Burberry and the relative word mark were affixed on the Scottish motive, on the other hand he had denied the appeal of the crime of counterfeiting due to the unsuitability of the above mentioned figurative mark to create a univocal link with the English fashion house.

With this last judgment, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Rome Court of Appeal in the part of the ruling that excludes the need to use the words "Burberry" on the fabric for counterfeiting purposes, considering that "trademark infringement also occurs in cases of partial reproduction of the trademark where it is likely to create confusion with the earlier registered trademark".

However, the Court then observed, in order to overturn the appeal decision, that this is particularly true in cases where the earlier mark is a well-known mark - i.e. when it is "known to a large part of the public and can be immediately recognized as relating to the goods and services for which the mark is used".

Therefore, there do not seem to be any doubts about the recognition of Burberry's reputation as an ornamental motif brand and its ability to distinguish and originate from the products on which it is affixed.

Despite the fact that the case therefore refers to a criminal offence (counterfeiting offence under Article 473 of the Penal Code) which protects public faith and does not concern the actual confusion of the public, this decision represents an important precedent for Burberry, as it openly recognizes the well-known character of the trademark and thus broadens its sphere of protection.

Dior files for protection of the Saddle Bag as a Three-dimensional Trademark.

Gianpaolo Todisco - Partner

20 years after the launch of a now iconic model, Dior has applied to the Us Patent and Trademark Office for registration of the famous 'Saddle' bag as a three-dimensional trademark.

The Saddle bag has been re-introduced from the F/W 2018-19 collection with the addition of new details, prints and materials to the saddle bag accessory.

A three-dimensional mark is a sign consisting of the three-dimensional shape of a product or its appearance and is governed by a specific regulation, both at European and Italian level, which provides for the exclusion of registrability for signs that:

1. consist of the shape, or other characteristic, imposed by the very nature of the product;

2. the shape, or other characteristic, of the product necessary to obtain a technical result;

3. the shape, or other characteristic, which gives substantial value to the product.

   With regard to the first limitation, the rationale of this rule is to prevent a renewable right, potentially unlimited in time, such as a trade mark, from monopolising forms which derive from the natural form of the product, or which in any case are devoid of distinctive character because they coincide with a standard form in the opinion of consumers.

   With reference to the prohibition to register a functional form, the rationale of the standard is to protect the market by preventing a person from becoming the owner of a perpetual right on technical solutions or functional characteristics of a product which, on the contrary, can be protected through patents for inventions.

   Finally, as regards the limit on registering a substantial form, the rule is intended to prevent the registration of a form which, on its own, is capable of determining consumer choice. That characteristic, in fact, falls within the protection of patents for design rights which, unlike trade marks, is limited in time. On this point, Italian case law has ruled that a three-dimensional trademark can be registered if the shapes for which protection is sought have a functional or aesthetic value, such that they do not configure a particular character of ornament or utility.

   In one case, registration as a three-dimensional trademark was refused on the grounds that it was possible to perceive the aesthetic element as predominant, if not exclusive, and in any case with such prominence as to determine the consumer's choice. If Dior wanted to extend the protection of the three-dimensional mark, also at Community level, this third requirement will most likely be the most difficult obstacle to overcome for the French maison. Moreover, it is worth remembering that in two judgments in 2013, the General Court of the European Union denied Bottega Veneta the registration as a three-dimensional Community trademark of two different shapes of handbag, one characterized by the particular shape of the handles and the other by the absence of closing devices. In the present case, the judges considered that the shapes for which Bottega Veneta applied for registration did not fulfil the essential function of a trademark, that is, as an indicator of the origin of a product.

Photography and fashion. Clovers obtains a favorable ruling from the Court of Milan on the unauthorized use of a photograph on a fashion collection.

Gianpaolo Todisco – Partner

Laura Bussoli - Associate

One of the gaments of the collection.

Last week the Court of Milan sentenced the company founded by stylist Antonio Marras to pay damages to the American photographer, Daniel J. Cox, for the unauthorized reproduction of a photograph of the latter on clothing.

Daniel J Cox is one of the most successful nature photographers and author of several covers of National Geographic magazine and he know as being the author of a monographic book dedicated to wolves.

The controversy arose when Fashion designer Antonio Marras used this image without the author's consent to develop its fashion collection.

The image was reproduced on a series of women's garments and presented during the woman’s 2014-2015 F/W fashion show in Milan and the collection was distributed and marketed worldwide.

After the parties unsuccessfully completed negotiations aimed at settling the case, the photographer invoked injunctive relief against unauthorized use of the image as well as compensation for damages quantified at the request of the same in the so-called price of consent.

The Court ruled that the image printed on several garments created by Marras coincided with the photograph shot by the plaintiff and met the requirements of the artistic and creative character necessary to access the "enhanced" protection provided by the Copyright Law.

Indeed, Italian copyright law grants photographs a dual level of protection, distinguishing between photographic works (or artistic photographs) and simple photographs.

The orginal photograph. Copyright Daniel J. Cox. - Natural Exposures. All rights reserved.

The difference - which is not always easy in practice - is traced by art. 87 of Italian Copyright Law which define as simple photographs "images of people or aspects, elements or facts of natural and social life, obtained by photographic or similar process, including reproductions of works of figurative art and film stills" and recognize the same protection as neighboring right.

 Conversely, there is no explicit legislative definition of an artistic photographic work  in the Copyright Law and this is left to a “case by case” "practical" evaluation by judges on the basis of a series of indexes.

Artistic photographs are treated like other artistic works have access full protection (up to 70 after the death of their author), whereas simple photographs, on the other hand, enjoy limited protection (20 years from the date of photograph’s production) and the photographer is only entitled to fair compensation in case of unlawful use.

A first and fundamental point of the decision rendered in the Cox/Marras case, concerns the recognition of the artistic value of photography: in the Court’s opinion the artistic value lies "in the creative capacity of the author, i.e. in his personal imprint, in the choice of the subject to be portrayed as well as in the moment of realization and reworking of the shot, such as to arouse suggestions that transcend the common aspect of the reality represented.

The choice to portray the animal in its natural environment and in adverse climatic conditions makes the shot "the result of study and careful photographic analysis by the author" and contributes to the recognition of its artistic value according to the Court.

It is also the technique that comes in this case in relief in order to correctly frame the image within the protected and protectable photographic works: "a wise blurring of the surrounding environment, thus enhancing the expression of the represented subject ... and evoking, in this way, peculiar suggestions in the observer such as to go beyond the mere graphic representation of the animal (...) "a wise use of chiaroscuro and the use, with creative purposes, of light ". Last, the specific authoritative recognition of the artist in the United States and the publishing of the photograph in a monographic work also helped the Court understand the nature of the work.

Therefore, once the artistic nature of the work has been ascertained, the use by the defendant company for commercial purposes of the photograph, by placing it on an item of clothing included in the women's collection, in the absence of any authorization from the author, "constitutes an open violation of the author's right to compensation for damages".

It is interesting to note that the Court of Milan rejected the defendant's objections to the alleged lawfulness of the use of the photograph, since the same can be found on the Google search engine.

The Court found that - "the mere availability on the web of a photograph certainly does not constitute a presumption of absence of authoritative rights, on the contrary, the burden of ascertaining whether or not third parties have rights".

In conclusion, the Court stated that the work of the photographer Daniel J. Cox should be considered to be protected by copyright law, as a creative work in the particular field of photography, ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay damages to the applicant and ordering the publication of the operative part of the judgment by and at the expense of the defendants in the periodical Vanity Fair.

Through this judgment, the Court of Milan has analyzed several legal issues which are constantly being debated experts in the world of intellectual property.