|
Happy times: Jane Birkin with a Birkin bag |
Like all icons, also the
iconic Birkin bag has a history that is a mix of chance and inspiration.
As explained by the relevant Wikipedia entry, it all began in 1981
when Hermès chief executive Jean-Louis
Dumas was travelling next to actress and singer [how to forget this?] Jane Birkin on a flight from Paris to London. Ms Birkin had just placed her straw bag in the
overhead compartment of her seat, when the contents fell to the deck. She told
Mr Dumas how difficult it was to find a weekend bag she liked.
Apparently this plea
for (fashion) help was irresistible to Mr Dumas, who in 1984 created a black
supple leather bag for Ms Birkin, based on a 1982 design.
What happened next is
history, as there is probably no fashion enthusiast who is unaware of what a
Birkin bag looks like, and how exclusive it is to own one.
Nonetheless, after PETA released a video and launched a petition against the use by Hermès of
crocodile- and alligator-skin accessories a few weeks ago, yesterday Ms Birkin
released the following statement:
"Having been alerted to the cruel
practices endured by crocodiles during their slaughter for the production of
Hermès bags carrying my name …, I have asked Hermès Group to rename the Birkin [apparently
not the Birkin as such, but only the croco version] until
better practices responding to international norms can be implemented for the
production of this bag."
|
Bag of discord |
While Hermès also issued a statement in
which it promised to investigate further the farm implicated in the PETA video,
one may wonder whether from a legal standpoint this iconic French fashion house
may be actually required to change the name of its equally iconic bag.
Besides possible contractual arrangements in place between Hermès
and Jane Birkin, could IP law play any role?
Based on a quick search on TMview, Hermès successfully applied
to register 'Birkin' as a French trade mark in Classes 16 and 18 of the Nice
Classification back in 1997.
One question that may arise at this stage is whether the fact that
the person after which a certain good is named no longer wishes to be
associated with it can represent a ground, eg
misleading use, for revocation of the relevant trade mark.
Among the grounds for revocation, Article 12(2)(b) of the Trade
Mark Directive includes the situation in which a trade mark, in
consequence of the use made of it by its proprietor or with his consent in
respect of the goods or services for which it is registered, is liable to
mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality or geographical
origin of those goods or services.
Although the list in Article 12(2)(b) is not exhaustive, it would
appear that mere subsequent lack of endorsement from a person after whom a
certain good is named may not be sufficient to have a trade mark revoked.
|
And here's the new, timeless Lady IPKat |
This would be so especially
on consideration that Jane Birkin appears to have never been actually involved
in the design and/or production of the Birkin bag. Similarly to other instances, eg the Mulberry Alexa (named after Alexa
Chung) or Dior's Lady Dior (named after Diana
Spencer) [see here for further examples],
the Birkin bag was not the result of a collaboration between Hermès and Jane
Birkin.
And even if this had been the case, perhaps it would not make much
difference either.
In its decision in Elizabeth
Emanuel [not
just Lady Diana's very romantic wedding
gown designer, but also owner
a relevant Community trade mark who had assigned it, together with her
business, to a third party] the
Court of Justice of the European Union held in fact that, even if the average
consumer might think that Elizabeth Emanuel was still involved in the design of
the relevant goods even after the assignment of her business and trade mark,
this would not be misleading as to the nature of quality of the relevant
goods. As such, it would not be sufficient to have a trade mark revoked on
grounds that its use is misleading.
All in all, it would appear that - besides asking - Jane Birkin
could not really request Hermès to rename the Birkin bag, whether as such or
even just its croco version.
But what do readers think?
Personality rights? According to French case law, there's always an inalienable core when it comes to image rights, name rights, etc.
ReplyDeletePassing off - false endorsement/association ? Eddie Irvine and Rihanna cases ?
ReplyDeleteNot a chance. Does anyone ACTUALLY believe Jane Birkin is in any relevant way connected to the HERMES bag? No-one outside her legal team. Does she have a reputation in relation to clothing design ? Not that I'm aware of. Her own line? Not that I know of. Do they use imagery of Jane Birkin to sell the product? Not that I'm aware of.
ReplyDeleteIf she wants to be a pain post more stories about this so that anyone looking up Birkin bag finds stories about the allegedly horrible ways that they are made. Perhaps Peta could have a bag described as being designed by Jane Birkin which has on it (in the style of Anya Hindmarsh).
NO CROCODILES WERE HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS BAG
Given the furore over Cecil, one wonders how long it is until Peta suggest that all handbags should be called the CECIL - a disgusting trophy to demonstrate wealth.
Mrs. Birkin would certainly have grounds to object if the bag were now to be made of Birkin skin.
ReplyDeleteSetting IP issues aside.
How many other critters have already surrendered their hides over the last three decades to make these bags? How many tons of toxic chromium salts were released in the environment? Has she never set foot in an abattoir, or even look at pictures? How about the abbreviated life of calves, who are taken from their mothers to keep the milk industry going.
Her belated tears have a certain crocodilian quality.