Articles

Recently, there has been an uproar in Kenya initiated by an article that was published on the Business Daily about Disney's trademark for the phrase "Hakuna Matata". A reasoned response (here) clarified that the TM is valid only in the U.S., so no rights in East Africa are involved, and further argued that this is normal business behaviour and normal use of the TM system. Various articles have questioned the legality and morality of the TM, and the BBC ran a story about "unlikely" phrases that are trademarked.

If someone takes part in a photo shoot for the promotion of a clothing line, they consented to his or her image being used online as part of the designers’ advertising campaign - surely? Similarly, if you blur somebody's face in a film so much so that he or she is no longer recognizable, you have dispensed with your obligation to respect their right to their image -surely? Well, don't be so sure -the Paris Tribunal would reject both assumptions, according to recent judgments on image rights.

A cashmere scarf from one of the factories that makes Burberry's own outerwear for just $95, a whopping $400 or so less than Burberry's retail price. How about a leather bucket bag from the craftsmen behind some of Givenchy's products or a leather satchel from a factory linked to Celine? That will set you back just $245 and $150, respectively - more than $2,000 off of the price of your average Givenchy bag and upwards of $3,000 in the case of Celine. Lipstick for $10 made by the same manufacturers as those behind La Praire.

A few days ago the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued yet another interesting judgment, which - albeit not directly related to IP - might be nonetheless relevant for the interpretation and application of public policy/morality exclusions, especially in the case of blasphemous and offensive subject matter.