After another ample and delicious lunch, the assembled registrants reconvened for the final stretch of Day Two of INTA's European winter conference, the topic being "Trademarks and the Right of Publicity", moderated by Kenneth Wilton (Seyfarth Shaw JJP).
|Leonardo da Vinci: |
any residual rights ...?
[noted on the IPKat here and here]. It now seems that the mere appearance of a celebrity's image on goods now appears to create the implication that he or she has endorsed them, according to the Rihanna case [noted by the IPKat here].
Guernsey has its own statutory registration scheme for protecting image rights [discussed by the IPKat here, here and here]. This right is "a quirk, rather than anything you have to worry about", said Mark, adding that it might come in handy if you want to show a real IP presence on Guernsey for tax purposes.
[Katpost here] and Lindsay Lohan [Katpost here]. Tara outlined the areas of overlap between trade mark rights and publicity rights, as well as the differences. The fact that trade mark infringement requires some sort of confusion while infringement of publicity rights does not is a feature that gives the latter an advantage over the former, as well as the need for trade marks to be distinctive (lots of people are famous by name but not everyone is famous by face). Under s 1052 of the Lanham Act, trade marks for a person's name, portrait or signature can't be registered by third parties without their written consent -- a relevant consideration in the Blue Ivy case [Katpost by guest Kat Tara here].