Bardehle Pagenberg has posted the full text of the decision of the Munich court upholding the ex parte injunction, which answers some of the questions commentators raised with regards to the last post. Namely, commentators wondered whether Triumph had relied on copyright (as reported in the news media) or on an (unregistered) Community design.
I turns out the media were correct for once; Triumph indeed relied solely on a copyright claim.
The court notes that fashion designs are in principle protected by copyright law (as works of applied art), but in most specific cases, courts denied protection for lack of individual character (p. 8 of the decision). In the case at hand, however, the design of the bikini by Iskren Lozanov (pictured above right) was so unusual and original that there was no doubt about its quality as a protectable work in the sense of art. 2(2) German Copyright Act. The bikini worn by Beyoncé in the music video was a derivative work as the characteristics of Lozanow's design remain clearly recognizable.
As Henning Hartwig notes on Class99, this case will almost certainly go all the way up.
There is a certain element of irony when starting the video, only to get the error message that it is withdrawn due to rights held by Sony Music Entertainment.
ReplyDelete