Fashion Law

ONE MORE ROUND IN THE QUITE FAMOUS CASE OF THE "METABIRKINS"

Last September 30th, ended another important round in the battle between the Hermés fashion house and the U.S. artist Mason Rothschild, a dispute involving the collection of digital images depicting Birkin bags covered in faux fur, precisely titled "MetaBirkins'", which Rothschild designed and marketed by selling them in the form of NFTs.

The case, brought last January by the French fashion house before the New York Court to protect its trademark rights on the acclaimed "Birkin" handbag model and, in general, its industrial property rights against the illicit exploitation of the same in the metaverse, is being followed very closely by all jurists dealing with intellectual property as it constitutes an authentic leading case in this subject, given that is centered on the interference between trademark rights and NFTs and the determination of the extent to which the former can extend into the virtual world.

In the order published last September 30th, Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the appeal brought by Mason Rothschild against an earlier decision rendered in May in which the same Court had rejected Rothschild's request to dismiss Hermès's claim that its trademark rights had been infringed through the famous "MetaBirkins" project.

Beyond the procedural technicalities and even substantive ones related to the protection guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitutional Charter, claimed by Mason Rothschild by arguing the artistic relevance of his own works, it is important to notice that the U.S. judge found that, like Hermés' Birkin bags, the "MetaBirkins" made by the artist are nonetheless valuable products. In fact, the related NFTs were sold for more than a million dollars, which, according to the U.S. judge, would be a further confirmation of the confusion generated among both consumers and media, who were led to believe that Hermès was somehow connected to the line of NFTs made by Rothschild or that there was in any case a partnership between them.

This case is one of a growing number involving the Web3 (such as the case brought by Nike against the second-hand market operator StockX) that both jurists and trademark owners are monitoring with particular interest and attention, and which will unavoidably have to be considered when developing future trademark protection and filing strategies. It is no coincidence that the most important and famous brands, not only those best known in the fashion world but also in other sectors, have been rushing lately to file new trademark applications for their use in the metaverse as NFTs or other virtual goods. This also as a consequence of the growing interest shown by consumers in digital experiences.

It is therefore increasingly important, both for those in the legal world and for all those aiming to expand into the virtual world, to understand the new limits of intellectual property protection by no longer limiting themselves monitoring the physical world, but also the digital one in order to keep abreast of the changes in technology that are inevitably affecting the evolution of intellectual property sector regulations.

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)

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.

3d Printing and Fashion. A Focus on IP.

noa-raviv-graduate-collection_highres.jpg

3D technology and opportunities created by the introduction of 3D printers is disrupting the standard supply and manufacturing schemes of traditional industries like healthcare, art and even food.

The combination of advancements in printing technology, the more and more powerful personal computers, the growth in online commerce, and the rising market demand for 3D printed objects has caused a recent flare of 3D printing technology.

As 3D printers have become increasingly accessible to the public, websites and online platforms that enable the sharing of CAD files have grown in popularity as these websites enable the sharing of applications that enable the consumer to directly manufacture an object from a source file.

The availability of 3D printing to end consumers and the ability to create objects is also impacting on the fashion world as consumers are today beginning to enjoy certain fashion products which are 3D printed.

However, the “do it yourself” industry is also raising many questions on the effects and the lawfulness of this new manufacturing procedure and a number of legal issues have arisen in intellectual property law driven industries like fashion.

 

I.                    What is 3D printing?

3D printing is a process of making three-dimensional solid objects from a digital file by placing successive layers of material until the entire object is created. Each of these layers can be seen as a thinly sliced horizontal cross-section of the eventual object. In order to create a product through a 3D printer, users make a virtual design of the object they want to print or create, and then to prepare a digital file in a compatible program suitable for printing (usually a CAD file). Users can create CAD files from scratch when the appropriate file is uploaded in the 3D printer, and then printer creates the object layer by layer.

 

II.          3D Printing and Fashion

Improvements in the 3D technology has increased its applicability on the fashion industry which has begun experimenting 3D printing. Recently, multinational footwear maker New Balance launched a collaboration with Formlabs to manufacture a sneaker with upgraded 3d printed forefoot. San Francisco based Continuum is a clothing company that allows customers to design 3D printed bikinis (as well as other products) by inputting their body shapes and measurements.  Adidas, the giant footwear maker, has teamed up with a company called Carbon to make its first mass-produced 3D printed midsole. Carbon specializes in resin 3D printing and Adidas has tons of experience making sports and running shoes.

Consumers will be soon in a condition to manufacture their owns clothing at home. Is this something new? Not necessarily if we consider that before prêt-à-porter was introduced, certain bespoke clothing was not manufactured necessarily by tailors but also at home by family members of end users. However this innovative manufacturing system is shifting the designers capabilities from stitching to software programming.

Indeed well-known fashion institutes and design schools around the world have 3D printers on their campuses. They are also offering courses in the field of 3D printed fashion. These learning institutions are providing students access to body scanning technologies and wearable technologies. There is a good chance that some of those students, with exposure to new technologies, will end up launching 3D printed fashion products which will accelerate the mainstreaming of this concept and leave their sewing machines in a closet.

Also, 3D printed fashion involves turning movable/flexible material into clothing. 3D printed dresses can potentially be as revolutionary as the sewing machine was almost two-hundred years ago.

When 3D printing was first used in fashion, the process was quite slow. One of the first attempts at making a 3D printed piece of clothing took seven entire days with the printer running 24 hours a day. Plus, the 3D printers in those days did not offer flexible printing material. However, technology has improved. It does not take 7 days anymore and flexible printing material is also available. The flexible material is known as TPU 92A-1 and it can be washed and ironed just like normal cloth. FilaFlex is another flexible material used to make 3D printed clothing.

Most of the 3D printed clothing is printed using the selective laser sintering process. This method of 3D printing offers the ability to make intricate designs and achieve a high level of detailing which is a requirement with fashion and clothing.

3D technology will allow young designers to introduce their products to the world. Such designers have several challenges, including having to deal with long lead times and minimum orders. With 3D technology, emerging designers can simply print orders as they are placed rather than have to scrounge to obtain enough financing for minimum orders and being stuck with unsold stock. If nothing else, 3D printing will enable them to create a sample quickly and cost- effectively. The technology also provides opportunities for those designers to test the market on a small scale by printing limited quantities of their product to determine whether their item is acceptable to the marketplace.

The impact of 3D printing on the fashion system presents several peculiar implications typical of this industry. These issues stretch from intellectual property to distribution and sustainability.

 

a)           Intellectual Property issues

3D printing is an emerging digital technology that may disrupt certain areas of intellectual property law despite the its positive impact on the fashion industry.

Generally speaking, authenticity is also a potential issue that could affect consumers. How would a person know for sure that the design they are buying is indeed the work of the designer that is advertised?

Moreover the ability to quickly create, reproduce, modify, copy, transfer, share, post, and download CAD files for 3D printing has created complex intellectual property issues especially as the cost of 3D printers decreases.

As the manufacturing process is made easier with 3D printing 3D printers threaten owners of IP assets as fake goods can be manufactured by private persons in their homes. Indeed, 3D printing technology, is likely to create negative economic effects on holders of IP rights and their IP driven business models. The situation is not particularly visible yet, but as the technology improves and the prices for equipment and consumables goes down, 3D printing may become a mass phenomenon3D printing will potentiate the number of instances of infringement and overlap with other IPRs while exceptions, invalidity and exhaustion will be likely general infringement defenses.

This section will analyze the effect of 3D printing on three main intellectual property assets: Trademarks, Models and Copyright. 

 

1)           Trademarks

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others. For certain authors, Trademark law is the most important form of protection for fashions and accessories being the most effective communication devices.[i]

Generally speaking, a trademark identifies the owner of the brand and prevents confusion among consumers. Needless to say, the fashion industry uses various types of trademarks. Traditionally fashion has used word marks to identify the goods of the manufacturers in the industry where it is common to find either personal names or fantasy names. The evolution of distinctive signs in recent decades has resulted in a variety of source identifiers other than traditional signs (eg, word and stylized trademarks). As a result, the legislature across the European Union and worldwide has broadened the capability for objects, actions, events and patterns, among others, to be registered as trademarks.

We therefore now commonly find that the Fashion Industry commonly files for the protection of pattern trademarks (which can be represented by an image that shows the pattern and how it is repeated) and position trademarks (which consist of a specific placement of a trademark on a product). However, where 3D printing seems to have a deeper impact, is on the three-dimensional trademarks, which are signs consisting of the shape of the goods.

However, many jurisdictions (like the EU) impose some limitations on registering shape marks. According to Article 4 (1)(e) of the Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks,  signs which consist exclusively of: (i) the shape, or another characteristic, which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (ii) the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; and (iii) the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods, should not be registered. It means that the functional shape cannot be registered as a trademark under EU law.

As 3D printers mainly serve functional purposes, it appears that the protection sought by fashion designers under an EU three-dimensional trademark would fine severe obstacles in obtaining the registration of the shape of a product manufactured with a 3D printer. We have to remember that recently Nestle lost a battle before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for registering its Kit Kat’s four finger shape because the shape was functional and not distinctive.  Similarly, Lego’s three-dimensional red eight-stud brick shape could not be registered as a trademark, because the shape of the brick is necessary to obtain a technical result.

As many of the 3D prints will be functional shapes, these are excluded from the trademark registration but in that minority of the cases where a 3D print is distinctive but does not serve a functional purpose, it may be registerable.

However three-dimensional trademark find another obstacle when the registration is sought for fashion products.  In order to be registered as a 3D mark, the shape must also not have any aesthetic or functional purpose. If this is so, the possibility of protecting a product manufactured with a 3D printer under trademark law narrows down dramatically and the designer should then seek protection through a patent of industrial invention, utility model, or by registering models.

On trademarks, one last note is mandatory when we look from the prospective of a “do it yourself” manufacturer who creates products with a 3D printer. Needles to say that the 3D printing manufacturer generally has no right to use the trademark owned by a third party on the product manufactured with a 3D printer. However, he will always be able to claim general defenses to the trademark infringement. Under EU Law, these are generally “defensive” defenses like exhaustion, fair use, absence of genuine use and acquiescence, in addition to “counterattack” defenses like invalidity and revocation.

 

2)           Designs and Models

A design is defined as "the appearance of the whole or a part of a product resulting from the features of, in particular, the lines, contours, colors, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation".

Designs may be protected if:

  • they are novel, that is if no design identical or differing only in immaterial details has been made available to the public;

  • they have individual character, that is the "informed user" would find the overall impression different from other designs which are available to the public. Where a design forms part of a more complex product, the novelty and individual character of the design are judged on the part of the design which is visible during normal use.

Registered and unregistered Community designs are available under EU Regulation 6/2002, which provide a unitary right covering the European Union. Protection for a registered Community design is for up to 25 years, subject to the payment of renewal fees every five years. The unregistered Community design lasts for three years after a design is made available to the public and infringement only occurs if the protected design has been copied.

Thus, EU Design Law simply protects the appearance of products as defined by their specific ‘features’. These features may be the result either of ‘ornamentation’ which is applied to a product (i.e. a two dimensional - 2D - image) or the product itself (a model - 3D).

Aside the Community Designs, each member State has adopted a legislation to protect designs and models at a national level.

It should be noted that under the Design regulation, the exclusivity granted has certain limitations. The most relevant limitations are found in Article 20 of the Design Regulation  which are: (a) acts done privately and for non-commercial purposes; (b) acts done for experimental purposes; and (c) acts of reproduction for the purpose of making citations or of teaching, provided that such acts are compatible with fair trade practice and do not unduly prejudice the normal exploitation of the design, and that mention is made of the source.

As far as the fashion industry is concerned, a notable case under the Dutch case law is the Nadia Plesner decision from the Court of the Hague.

Here the court balanced the fundamental right of Louis Vuitton to peacefully enjoy its property right (i.e. design right) against the artistic freedom. The court found that an artist was allowed to use LV’s design of a multicolor canvas as applied to one of its own expensive handbags as part of a drawing called Simple Living where the LV-bag was being carried by a malnourished African child (together with a ‘Paris Hilton-dog’). By the same token, even the use of the same drawing as the motive on a T-shirt was allowed for. The artist explained that the bag was used as a symbol and as part of an attempt to draw attention to what she believed was a problematic difference in attention given to celebrities and to the famine which was going on in Darfur.

Under this framework, users of 3D printing for artistic, political or satirical or other private purposes and even for spare parts, will find some freedom of expression beyond the limited structure of EU design regulation.

 

3)           Copyright

Generally speaking, we all know that copyright will protect the originality of a work and the creator’s right to reproduce it. This means that if copies of an original object are 3D printed without authorization, the creator can obtain relief under copyright law.

As we mentioned, anyone with access to a 3D printer (either at home or at a local print shop) is able to produce a tangible, usable product out of a digital design files (usually CAD files). CAD files are typically protected by copyright law and, for many business concerns, represent a highly valuable intellectual property asset.

On the other hand, despite its current and future potential importance to the economy, fashion can in some jurisdictions be awarded the same level of copyright protection as other creative industries.

This type of protection is sought by fashion houses in order to extend IP rights to products protected under the design regulation (which usually up to last 25 years) to a period of time usually equal to 70 years after the death of the author.

A fashion manufacturer who creates products with a 3D printer must always keep in mind that the creating a fashion product with a 2D printer can lead to a double step copyright infringement: the software file and the artistic and creative elements of the fashion product.

b)           Supply Chain and Distribution.

Traditional manufacturing is based on the premise of identical, high-volume production. However, such structures are proving increasingly insufficient when faced with the ever-growing demand for customization, faster turnaround times and more efficient supply chains.  The traditional approach to manufacturing sees raw materials sourced and products manufactured in large centralized factories. After production, the products are shipped to the end consumer.

3D printing introduces the concept of “distributed manufacturing”, which involves a digital network of decentralized production sites, spread across locations and connected by digital technology. Driven by digital connectivity, distributed manufacturing allows manufactures to simplify and minimize their material supply chains through online, digital platforms and data sharing. Distributed manufacturing could even involve producing parts in different locations before being assembled in a central location.

Distributed manufacturing can make supply chains more efficient.

Distributed production can reduce inventory, logistics and production costs in several ways. Since goods are produced close to, or at the point of need, production can move closer to the end customer. This not only eliminates costly logistics expenditure but also allows companies to produce goods close to their respective markets. Additionally, by storing a digital inventory as opposed to warehouses of physical stock, companies can also significantly reduce inventory costs. As far of the fashion industry is concerned, a better management of the inventory and stock allows important savings and reduces waste of unsold collections and products. 

With the growing demand for customized products, manufacturers must increasingly find ways to tailor their goods to the specific needs of their customers. Traditionally, having a single, custom item designed, manufactured and delivered would mean long waiting times and higher costs for the consumer. However, distributed manufacturing, with its decentralized, “scaled-down” production, offers greater flexibility and agility to produce customized goods, adding value at a comparable price to mass-produced goods. A good example is Adidas: the sportswear giant has recently opened what it calls “Speedfactories” in Germany and the United States. These fully automated factories have been created to rapidly produce small batches of personalized sneakers, and according to Adidas, the company is able to bring its sportswear to market three times faster than with traditional manufacturing. While the majority of Adidas shoes are made in Asia, building its Speedfactories closer to consumers in both American and European markets has led to a much quicker shipping and, therefore, a better customer experience.

Distributed manufacturing offers the opportunity of rethinking traditional supply chains. Raw materials could be shipped to distributed locations instead of one centralized facility, offering greater flexibility, for example. Another opportunity is moving shipping closer to the end customer, which would impact both manufacturers and shipping companies, who may switch to an “on-demand” production service as opposed to storing physical inventories. 

Last, 3D printing will allow companies and brands to create, in real-time, items tweaked and personalized by the consumer

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

Foto burberry.png

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.

Cars, Sneakers and Social Media: Ferrari vs. Philipp Plein

plein-ferrari.jpg

The origin of the lawsuit between Ferrari and Philipp Plein dates back to  August 2019, after the publication of some posts on Plein’s personal Instagram profile.

Specifically, the German designer published some pictures and videos showing one of his Ferrari with a pair of sneakers (the “Moneybeast” model, on sale for almost €5000) resting on the trunk of the car.

Only few days after such publication, Ferrari's lawyers warned Plein inviting him to remove the above mentioned contents, within a 48-hour term, as they constituted illicit use of the Ferrari’s trademark.

Ferrari therefore accused Philipp Plein of having exploited the notoriety of Ferrari’s brand to advertise its products and to confuse consumers, leading them to assume the existence of a partnership between Ferrari and Plein’s brand in relation to such specific model of shoes.

Ferrari also believed that the posts published by Plein were offensive, since they also “objectified” the female bodies of the models included in the pictures. Therefore, the posts were considered not in line with the values promoted by Ferrari, which did not intend to be associated with such type of content.

In response, Plein approached Ferrari's CEO directly, stating to be a dissatisfied customer and that he did not intend to proceed with the removal of the posts.

The Court of Milan was called to rule on the matter and, in June 2020, ordered Philipp Plein to delete all the posts in which the Ferrari trademark had been unlawfully represented and to pay €300,000 as compensation for damages.

In order to make a conscious use of social networks, every user must be aware that a picture  posted online could constitute an infringement of intellectual property rights of third parties.

While this concept should be familiar to every user, influencers and public figures with a significant social media following should be required to pay specific attention to these issues when posting content that depicts trademarks or other IP-protected contents without the express permission of the owner.

Philipp Plein's personal Instagram profile has more than 2 million followers. As such, the posts violating the Ferrari trademark were potentially able to reach a huge number of users.

The assessment of an infringement of third parties’ trademarks in connection with posts published on social media is based on whether such publication has a commercial or advertising purpose.

The Court of Milan held that the Instagram posts published by Plein had a clear commercial purpose (despite the fact that the pictures had been posted on the designer's personal profile and showed a car owned by him) and that Plein’s products would be perceived as more exclusive and desirable thanks to the connection with the Ferrari brand. 

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

saddle.jpg

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.

One of the gaments of the collection.

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 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.