IP and counterculture: Who owns a tattoo?; Lexology, September 27, 2019

Novagraaf - Alastair Rawlence, Lexology; IP and counterculture: Who owns a tattoo?

"Advising the artist: think bigger than copyright

With the exception of tribal tattoos based on an indigenous right or designs transferred to another party via assignment, IP rights in tattoo artwork will belong to the artist that created the tattoo, assuming it meets the requirements for artistic copyright. To do this, it needs to be ‘fixed’ (ie permanent) and ‘original’, although the threshold for the latter is fairly low.

As their tattoo body of work will invariably qualify for copyright protection, in theory there is nothing tattoo artists need to do to prove the subsistence of this right other than keep records of their designs and their creation dates. However, a tattoo design can also be eligible for trademark protection where it satisfies the requirements of a bona fide intention to use: for example use in marketing as part of a branded range of products. It may also function as a design right where the tattoo satisfies the requirement for novelty."

Toblerone shape not distinctive enough for trademark, Poundland claims; Guardian, August 17, 2017

Sarah Butler, Guardian; Toblerone shape not distinctive enough for trademark, Poundland claims

"Poundland has claimed Toblerone’s shape is no longer distinctive enough to be a valid trademark, in legal documents defending its right to launch a copycat bar.

Last month, the budget chain was forced to delay the launch of its Twin Peaks bar, which has two humps rather than the single peaks of Toblerone, after a legal warning from the brand’s owner, a Swiss division of Mondelēz...

Toblerone is one of Poundland’s most popular products, with 11m bars sold last year. But the retailer says it decided to bring out Twin Peaks “in response to the unfavourable reception” that greeted Toblerone’s new version with fewer chunks, launched last year."

Michael Jordan wins a tough copyright case in China; Associated Press via CBS News, 12/8/16

Associated Press via CBS News; Michael Jordan wins a tough copyright case in China:

[Kip Currier: This article is another example of confusion of trademark with copyright. It's clearly a trademark case from the facts: the dispute hinges on ownership rights to Michael Jordan's name, which is a trademark issue governed by trademark laws. But notice the headline "...tough copyright case..." and back-and-forth mentions of trademark and copyright.]

"Basketball legend Michael Jordan now owns his Chinese name, after China’s highest court sided with him Thursday following a years-long legal battle over a trademark dispute.

The former NBA star has fought a Chinese sportswear maker since 2012 over the name “Qiaodan,” pronounced “CHEEOW-dan,” the transliteration of “Jordan” in Mandarin.

Qiaodan Sports, a company based in southern China, had registered the trademark under which it was selling its own shoes and sportswear...

The case reflects the difficulties foreign individuals and companies face in protecting their copyrights in China, where domestic firms have long taken a cavalier attitude toward intellectual property."

Swatch succeeds in trademark case over Apple 'iWatch'; BBC, 9/13/16

BBC; Swatch succeeds in trademark case over Apple 'iWatch' :

"The UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO) upheld Swatch's opposition, which was filed in March 2014...

"This decision shows the difficulty global brands can have when it comes to launching a new product around the world," said Sharon Daboul, a trademark lawyer at law firm EIP.

"Trademarks are territorial, which means that a trademark must be available for registration in every country of interest."

Not being able to secure the iWatch trademark around the world would have been a "key factor", Ms Daboul added, in Apple's decision not to use the name for its smartwatch."

Olympic lawyers go for gold in trademark protection; CNBC, 8/18/16

Nicholas Wells, CNBC; Olympic lawyers go for gold in trademark protection:

"The Olympic games may be coming to a close in Brazil, but Olympic lawyers are still working hard in the U.S.

The U.S. Olympic Committee has come under fire this year for sending warning letters to businesses tweeting with "official" Olympic hashtags like "#TeamUSA" and "#Rio2016." But this isn't the first time the USOC has taken steps to protect its trademarked assets. Legal actions involving the USOC have become as routine as the games themselves.

Part of it is due to the special permission afforded the USOC in defending its intellectual property, and some is an abundance of intellectual property to be defended."