According to the BBC a French author has lost his trade mark claim against Disney. Franck le Calvez, author of Pierrot The Clown Fish had said that the title character of Disney’s Finding Nemo, a clownfish called Nemo, resembled the title character in his story and sought to rely on his 1995 registration with the French trade mark office. However, Judge Louis-Marie Raingeard de la Bletiere found that though both fishy protagonists had big smiles and three stripes down their sides, people were unlikely to confuse them. Nevertheles, Le Calvez is planning to bring a copyright action against Disney and Pixar.
The IPKat suspects that the copyright claim is where all the real action will be. The French extend a very broad measure of protection to authors and artists under their droit d'auteur (copyright) laws. Additionally, the degree of similarity which is needed to support an action for copyright infringement is q good deal less than that needed to succeed in an action for trade mark infringement.
Make your own clownfish here
Learn about clownfish here
Clowns here
Clown opposition here
The IPKat suspects that the copyright claim is where all the real action will be. The French extend a very broad measure of protection to authors and artists under their droit d'auteur (copyright) laws. Additionally, the degree of similarity which is needed to support an action for copyright infringement is q good deal less than that needed to succeed in an action for trade mark infringement.
Make your own clownfish here
Learn about clownfish here
Clowns here
Clown opposition here
FRENCH ALLOW DISNEY TO KEEP CLOWNING AROUND
![FRENCH ALLOW DISNEY TO KEEP CLOWNING AROUND]()
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html