CLASS 99
The blog for design law, in Europe and worldwide. This weblog is written by a team of design experts and fans. To contribute, or join us, or for any other reason, email class99@marques.org.
Want to receive Class 99 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.
Click here subscribe for free.
Who we all are...
TUESDAY, 17 JANUARY 2012
Hair of gold, cloth of silk, heart of darkness
This is a sad yet amusing tale of greed, stupidity and economic colonialism. To begin saga-wise, there once was a Danish designer called Annette Egholm (depicted) who founded a company called Fabric Copenhagen ApS.
In her own words, courtesy of Google's translation facility: "Back then textile designer Annette Egholm discovered not only Vietnam's natural beauty and the unique and friendly inhabitants, but at a local market, she found a silk fabric that was so beautiful and soft that she just had to own it."
And a few years later, own it she did, by filing in 2010 two Community Designs, numbers RCD 001230254-0001 and RCD 001230254-0002 in the name of her company, naming herself as "designer".
Once upon a time in the UK, you could be considered the "true and first inventor" even if all you did was introduce a foreign invention into the Realm. However, the world has moved on a bit from those days, and IMHO you have to do more than take fabrics from foreign lands with friendly inhabitants to get to be a designer.
Anyway, the Vietnamese have form at resisting the clutches of the West. A Swedish company called Minh Du Alneng AB took offence and filed invalidation actions at OHIM. According to their website, again courtesy of Google's translation facility, "The basic idea of the activity is to promote art and rich cultural tradition from a country that otherwise most associated with war and poverty. Another important aim is as far as possible to assist Vietnam's talented but poor artisans ..." Amen to that.
They got certificates from the Van Phuc – Ha Dong Silk Weaving Craft Village Association which showed that one of the Association's artisans had created and sold the design internally and for export, since 2000. They also put in evidence that Annette Egholm herself had been selling it in the EU for some years.
Her response was aimed straight at her own feet. Design -0002 “was discovered by me in Vietnam and imported by my company Fabric Copenhagen since 2006.” With the RCD the Fabric Copenhagen “claimed the right to distribute this product.” Design -0001 was “an old Vietnamese pattern which I discovered on one of my many travels to Vietnam […] and sold it in the EU since 2006. My company was founded back in 2011 and I have ever since then imported and sold 2 different patterns in the EU. This particular pattern has since 2006 been the backbone of my company.”
Unsurprisingly, OHIM found the designs to lack novelty (invalidation decisions 8337 and 8338). But what would the position have been if the designs had been used only on a local scale in Vietnam? Would that deprive a later Community Design of novelty? If not, could Egholm have validly claimed to be the "designer" and secured rights to the designs in Europe? No doubt she or someone else will provide us with a case in due course. Posted by: David Musker @ 17.09
Tags: Denmark, importation, invalidation, Invalidity, Novelty, OHIM, traditional knowledge, Vietnam,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA311
Hair of gold, cloth of silk, heart of darkness
In her own words, courtesy of Google's translation facility: "Back then textile designer Annette Egholm discovered not only Vietnam's natural beauty and the unique and friendly inhabitants, but at a local market, she found a silk fabric that was so beautiful and soft that she just had to own it."
And a few years later, own it she did, by filing in 2010 two Community Designs, numbers RCD 001230254-0001 and RCD 001230254-0002 in the name of her company, naming herself as "designer".
Once upon a time in the UK, you could be considered the "true and first inventor" even if all you did was introduce a foreign invention into the Realm. However, the world has moved on a bit from those days, and IMHO you have to do more than take fabrics from foreign lands with friendly inhabitants to get to be a designer.
Anyway, the Vietnamese have form at resisting the clutches of the West. A Swedish company called Minh Du Alneng AB took offence and filed invalidation actions at OHIM. According to their website, again courtesy of Google's translation facility, "The basic idea of the activity is to promote art and rich cultural tradition from a country that otherwise most associated with war and poverty. Another important aim is as far as possible to assist Vietnam's talented but poor artisans ..." Amen to that.
They got certificates from the Van Phuc – Ha Dong Silk Weaving Craft Village Association which showed that one of the Association's artisans had created and sold the design internally and for export, since 2000. They also put in evidence that Annette Egholm herself had been selling it in the EU for some years.
Her response was aimed straight at her own feet. Design -0002 “was discovered by me in Vietnam and imported by my company Fabric Copenhagen since 2006.” With the RCD the Fabric Copenhagen “claimed the right to distribute this product.” Design -0001 was “an old Vietnamese pattern which I discovered on one of my many travels to Vietnam […] and sold it in the EU since 2006. My company was founded back in 2011 and I have ever since then imported and sold 2 different patterns in the EU. This particular pattern has since 2006 been the backbone of my company.”
Unsurprisingly, OHIM found the designs to lack novelty (invalidation decisions 8337 and 8338). But what would the position have been if the designs had been used only on a local scale in Vietnam? Would that deprive a later Community Design of novelty? If not, could Egholm have validly claimed to be the "designer" and secured rights to the designs in Europe? No doubt she or someone else will provide us with a case in due course. Posted by: David Musker @ 17.09
Tags: Denmark, importation, invalidation, Invalidity, Novelty, OHIM, traditional knowledge, Vietnam,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class99?XID=BHA311
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 99 Archive
