tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3421500069684542784..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Rolex v Blomqvist: enough to give you a seizureVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-64036180839472490082015-05-18T17:26:50.222+01:002015-05-18T17:26:50.222+01:00The watch face and name ROLEX would surely be copy...The watch face and name ROLEX would surely be copyright!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5426608347244889192014-02-09T14:53:51.270+00:002014-02-09T14:53:51.270+00:00Quick question: what aspect of a watch could be en...Quick question: what aspect of a watch could be entitled to copyright protection? <br /><br />They only way I can fit a watch into the copyright law is, maybe, as a sculpture. But is it even that? Perhaps there's a copyright on the purely non-functional design elements, but could those be separated from the functionality?<br /><br />The judgment says: "It is not disputed that, in the case in the main proceedings, Rolex is the holder in Denmark of the copyright and trade mark right which it claims and that the watch at issue in that case constitutes counterfeit goods and pirated goods within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the customs regulation."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com