Monday Meraviglia

Preferably to some IP event
Looking for some IP fun?  Then do not forget to check regularly the IPKat Forthcoming Events page, lovingly and regularly updated.

The latest addition to the list is the annual CIPIL Spring Conference, organised like every year by Katfriend Professor Lionel Bently (University Cambridge) and chaired this year by Kathero Mr Justice Richard Arnold.

Our friends at the Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property have also released their monthly list of events, in the UK and abroad. Take a look here.

What's your number?  It's not just the title of a great film, but also the question that online copyright enthusiasts are likely to ask when it comes to the number of takedown requests that Google receives for alleged copyright infringements.

The numbers keep growing constantly and Vocativ notes how in the first week of 2016 the search engine giant received 12.1m requests.

This Kat notes that the number of requests received in the first week of 2015 was 8.1m. This is something like a 50% increase, observes Merpel, who also predicts that this trend is likely to remain highly positive.

Does @chanel belongs to Chanel? Apparently not. As reported by The Fashion Law, the @chanel Instagram account does not belong to the legendary Paris-based fashion house (which uses @chanelofficial instead), but to a 20-year-old Canadian girl named Chanel Bonin instead. Apparently Chanel (Bonin)'s account was first deactivated and is now back online. 

The difference is that photographs which included Chanel products, eg a hair clip and the drawing of a girl wearing a shirt with Chanel’s double “C’s” logo on it, are no longer there.

However this story has resulted in 400 further followers for Chanel Bonin.

My Other Bag is ...
Trade mark parody not an infringement (at least in the US)  As again reported by The Fashion Law, a few days ago a US court dismissed Louis Vuitton's lawsuit for - among other things - trade mark infringement against My Other Bag over the latter's canvas bags. 

According to Judge Jesse M Furman, in particular, use of Vuitton's trade marks amounted to a parody. 

This Kat has tried to think a bit how a situation like this would be addressed in Europe. As readers know, currently there is no specific parody defence in the EU trade mark system, although the recently adopted new Trade Mark Directive provides that (Recital 27):

"Use of a trade mark by third parties for the purpose of artistic expression should be considered as being fair as long as it is at the same time in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters. Furthermore, this Directive should be applied in a way that ensures full respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, and in particular the freedom of expression."

Does that mean that there is now a parody defence in the EU trade mark system? Not really. So this Kat suspects that, while trade mark use for artistic purposes might be considered OK, is not sure that the same be true for a use like that of My Other Bag. But what do readers think?
Monday Meraviglia Monday Meraviglia Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Monday, January 11, 2016 Rating: 5


  1. Trying to think about My Other Bag case from the EU perspective, and particularly from the CJEU case law point of view, I'm wondering which particular trade mark function would be jeopardized in this case. I doubt the origin function is actually impaired here. Maybe the advertising function? or the investment function? or the quality function?


  2. I guess the CJEU could accommodate any of these :-) However, I think that the investment function may be the one ...

  3. Doesn't the MOB mark so nicely placed on the device on the bag hurt the origin function? I would think this is risk of association, as well as famous TM infringement. Would it sell without the LV marks?


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:

Powered by Blogger.