A Row Over Nothing? - UK High Court Considers Whether a Rowing Machine Can be a Work of Artistic Craftsmanship

Art can often be very subjective and, quite frankly, baffling as to why a particular piece is seen to be 'good' or not. Nevertheless, the law doesn't see things that way, and even works that are less of 'artistic merit' can, and should be protected under various IP rights, since those rights don't discern based on the artistic value of something. You don't often get novel things argued as being works of artistic craftsmanship, but a recent case in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court had to look at whether a piece of exercise equipment could be one, and therefore protected by copyright. 

The case of WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (T/A Topiom) concerned an application for strike out and/or summary judgment of a claim made by WaterRower against Liking for copyright infringement, involving a water resistance rowing machine called the WaterRower (pictured here) developed by the company of the same name. In its application Liking argued that the rowing machine is not a "work of artistic craftsmanship" within the meaning of section 4(1)(c) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The main focus on the application was this, as the Defendant admitted that, if copyright were to subsist in the rowing machine, Liking's copying machines will infringe that right. 

Although the case also discusses aspects of the law relating to applications for strike out/summary judgment, for the purposes of this article we will skip this as it is by no means the most interesting aspect of the case. 

Section 4 provides copyright protection for 'artistic works', which includes 'a work of artistic craftsmanship', however, the legislation doesn't provide any definition for what this would include. The UK courts have grappled with this definition before, most notably in the case of George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd (helpfully summarized here), which has been interpreted further in Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth. 

In considering the definition of 'a work of artistic craftsmanship' Deputy High Court Judge Stone considered the five speeches given by the Law Lords in the Hensher case. 

Without delving too deep into the particular considerations raised by all of the Law Lords, Deputy High Court Judge Stone disagreed with the Defendant that the WaterRower is not a work of artistic craftsmanship. 

He noted that, as discussed in the Hensher case, "…the intention of the creator was at least relevant to whether or not a work of craftsmanship is artistic", which was also mentioned as the primary test to define a work of artistic craftsmanship. The Deputy High Court Judge also mentioned that, as shown by witness evidence, the creator of the WaterRower, John Duke, did indeed intend to create a rowing machine in which the user has "a welcoming emotional connection, as they would with a piece of art or furniture", which clearly demonstrated an intention to create a work of artistic craftsmanship. 

Despite the Defendant's assertion that the intention needs to focus on the primary intention of the creator of the work (and Mr Duke's intention was to simply create a water resistance machine and nothing else), the Deputy High Court Judge disagreed that this would be enough, by itself, to strike out the claim. He determined that "…so long as the artistic purpose was one of the creator’s purposes, it does not need to be the primary or dominant one". 

There is also evidence that could be adduced that show that the WaterRower was indeed a work of artistic craftsmanship, and, as noted by the Deputy High Court Judge, this would be a matter for a trial judge to decide on the basis of that evidence in any event. 

The Deputy High Court Judge also discussed a number of tests put forward by the Defendant on deciding what amounted to a work of artistic craftsmanship. He, however, refused to decide on which of them was the 'real' test, but nonetheless found that there were real prospects of success of meeting all of the relevant tests. He concluded that the Claimant has real prospects of success in proving that "…the WaterRower has a real artistic or aesthetic quality, beyond simply being appealing to the eye, and that the WaterRower embodies a sufficient degree of both craftsmanship and artistry, with the combination of these two things leading to the end result".

The Deputy High Court Judge then turned to consider the EU copyright law that relates to the matter. The main cases here are Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV and Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get. 

In brief, in Cofemel the CJEU considered the potential preclusion of copyright protection over design works which generate a significant aesthetic effect. In its decision the CJEU set out that copyright protects works that fulfil two requirements: (i) the existence of an original object, and (ii) the expression of intellectual creation. This means that the object in question "…must express the “intellectual creation” of its author, ie, the author has made free and creative choices in creating the work". 

However, as specified in Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo UK Ltd, if the subject matter "…has been dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints, which have left no room for creative freedom", it will not possess the requisite originality to be protected by copyright. 

In Brompton, the CJEU had to consider whether copyright applies to a product where its shape is at least in part necessary to obtain a technical result (in the case, a folding bike). In its decision, the CJEU agreed with the position in Football Dataco, but specified that "…in order to establish whether the product concerned falls within the scope of copyright protection… through that choice of the shape of the product, its author has expressed his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices and has designed the product in such a way that it reflects his personality". They also noted that earlier patents, if any apply to have applied to the item in question, will be relevant if they clarify the intentions of creating the shape of that item. In brief, the Court summarized its position as "…that [a] product is an original work resulting from intellectual creation, in that, through that shape, its author expresses his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices in such a way that that shape reflects his personality".

While the position in the UK and the EU are inconsistent, the Deputy High Court Judge nonetheless found that the Claimant would have real prospects of success even in the European context. He noted that the WaterRower: (i) is an original object; (ii) is an expression of Mr Duke’s intellectual creation; and (iii) whilst there were some technical constraints, they are not such that the idea and its expression become indissociable. 

The Deputy High Court Judge did flag that this should be a matter for Parliament of the higher courts to decide and to specify what will amount to a 'work of artistic craftsmanship' and depending on what the judge dealing with the matter decides, the case could very well be appealed to the Court of Appeal for another look. 

The case is a very interesting one and shows that even novel subject matter that one typically doesn't associate with copyright can be one that comes up in litigation. Although the case didn't provide a great deal of clarity on a definition for a work of artistic craftsmanship, it does provide some more discussion and sets the scene for a potential appeal down the line unless the matter settles (or the parties leave it at that following trial). 

It Ain't Bad - Advocate General Kotott Considers Bad Faith in TM Applications

Picking the right trademark can sometimes feel like it's the make-or-break moment for a brand, particularly when you are building a brand from nothing. Maybe taking 'inspiration' from a very well-known brand might be the boost you need, since people might naturally gravitate to your brand thinking it is another – but of course without meaning it is that one! Toeing the line of registering a trademark in bad faith is a tough one, since when is an application truly made in bad faith? This issue hasn't been touched on by the EU courts in a while, and in the lead-up to a CJEU decision Advocate General Kokott has given their two cents in a recently published opinion discussing this very issue.

The case of Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO concerned the application for the registration of a figurative mark by Nadal Esteban for the trademark "STYLO & KOTON", with the letters o written using symbols that look like flowers (EUTM 9917436). The application was opposed by Koton, who had earlier rights in the figurative trademark "KOTON", in which the letter o was also written using flowers. Koton argued that Mr Esteban's mark had been registered in bad faith, and should be declared invalid. After a rejection most recently by the EUIPO General Court, the matter has moved for determination by the CJEU, with the AG issuing their opinion ahead of the decision.

Under Article 52(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Regulation, an application can be declared invalid if the applicant was acting in bad faith when filing the application. For the Article to apply the mark applied for has to be identical or similar for identical or similar goods/services to the third-party mark being 'copied'. The General Court rejected Koton's argument under this premise since the mark being applied for was in relation to dissimilar good/services.

The AG emphasized that in assessing bad faith you have to, in addition to the above "…take into account all the relevant factors specific to the particular case which pertained at the time of filing the application". Factors in considering bad faith could include a lack of intention of using the mark at all, or the intention to use it in order to mislead consumers over the origin of goods or services. This could also include the attempt to register a mark knowing or thinking that registration by another would be imminent (i.e. registering iPad thinking Apple might start a line of tablets).

The AG therefore considered that based on the variety of factors raised by the AG (as discussed above) "…It is not therefore essential for recognition of bad faith that a third party is using an identical or similar sign for an identical or similar product or service capable of being confused with the sign for which registration is sought". Bad faith can include the registration of a similar or identical mark for wholly unidentical goods/services. 

The General Court had not considered Mr Esteban's earlier application as a factor when assessing bad faith, which was refused, for identical goods and services. After the EUIPO rejected his application Mr Esteban changed the goods and services included in his application and the mark was registered. The AG considered this to be an important factor and one that needed to be included. What the earlier application allows an inference to be drawn as to his intentions at the time of filing.

This highlights just how different bad faith is to other causes for invalidity, as it "…is not an inherent defect in the trade mark itself, but stems from the circumstances in which it was applied for". An application also cannot be divided into good and bad faith parts under Article 52 of the Regulation, but must be looked at as a whole in the light of bad faith. As such the AG saw that "…The fact that an application was originally filed for a trade mark for goods and services in respect of which the applicant knew or should have known that identical or similar trade marks existed may in any event be an important indication that the application to register that trade mark for other goods or services was also filed in bad faith".

The General Court also failed to properly assess whether Mr Esteban's defense to bad faith had any 'economic logic'. Having considered the new factor, and Mr Esteban's defense to bad faith, the AG concluded that the application had indeed been filed in bad faith.

While we wait for the CJEU's decision in the matter, it seems that the Advocate General has highlighted important oversights made by the General Court.

In the Shadows - A Silhouette Image is Not a Registrable Trademark, Says EU General Court

Images can evoke powerful feelings, associations and preconceptions, especially when paired with particular goods that aim to enhance our lives or even our own well-being. With the health supplement market reaching a staggering $19 billion in 2015, even a small slice of that pie can make any product a huge success monetarily. As the market has grown this competitive, so have the efforts of product manufacturers to distinguish their goods from the rest, including through the use of trademarks and distinctive names. As the products are often, arguably at least, quite similar in functionality and marketing, can one expect to register something simple as, say the silhouette of a body builder, in conjunction with protein supplements? In a recent decision the EU General Court aimed to tackle this problem, and to potentially narrow or widen the scope of these types of marks in the EU.

The case of Universal Protein Supplements v EUIPO dealt with an application to register the silhouette of a body builder by UPS as a EU trademark (using the same image as their registered trademark 11827599), specifically in classes 5, 25 and 35, covering, among others, clothing, nutritional supplements and online retails store services for nutritional supplements. Following UPS' application both the initial examiner and the Board of Appeal rejected the mark, refusing it under both Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009. USP appealed both decisions, and ultimately ended up in the EU General Court, which handed down its judgment nearly three weeks ago.

Body-building is rough, even with supplements

The General Court first started by assessing whether the mark was only indicative of, among other factors, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods, under Article 7(1)(c). To further expand on this, the provision aims to allow all producers of goods to use certain common indicators of quality and origin, so as to enable proper competition in a particular area of commerce. These indicators also don't serve as proper indicators of origin, allowing for consumers to purchase the same quality product (or in the inverse, avoid the same) knowing fully where it comes from per the marks used. This means that, for a mark to avoid Article 7(1)(c) "...there must be a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services in question such as to enable the public concerned to perceive immediately, without further reflection, a description of the goods and services in question or one of their characteristics".

The Court quickly determined that, in relation to all of the goods in the above classes, the mark was descriptive of those goods, as they related to body-building and were clearly designed for the very same. They added that "...it is common knowledge that drawings and photos of body-builders posing are often reproduced on the products themselves or in advertisements in order to indicate the intended purpose of the goods and services at issue, all relating, in particular, to the practice of body-building". One can appreciate this rationale, since the use of body builders, whether in silhouette form or not, is quite common in body-building and goods associated with it. It is arguable that, as there are plenty of other marks that use the same style of silhouette which have been registered, that the mark should be, potentially, registrable as well.

To summarize their position, the General Court concluded that "...informing the relevant public that the goods and services concerned are made or adapted for body-building, the mark applied for has a sufficiently direct and specific link with nutritional supplements, clothing, footwear, as well as online retail store services of those goods and goods related to health and diet", and the mark therefore fell foul of Article 7(1)(c).

The Court rejected the assertion that a silhouette could not be descriptive of goods as a style of mark, especially when the characteristics of the silhouette are clear and indicative of a body-builder. Also, the mark, although not highly detailed, doesn't require any mental effort from the public that perceives it, making a connection with body-building easily. Finally, although a silhouette of a body-builder can be, in many ways, a very variable style, it still does not mean the silhouette would not be descriptive, even with the possibility of several similar signs distinguishing similar goods successfully. The General Court ultimately rejected the appeal.

While the case is by no means revolutionary, it does illustrate a need to be careful in the choice of marks for specific goods, especially when the depiction could be closely linked to the goods at hand (by way of example, a bar bell could've just as well been descriptive here). Trademarks are a fickle mistress, as many similar marks to the one in question have been successfully registered, and applicants therefore have to be doubly careful with the marks that they choose to use.

Goliath v Jury - Google's Use of Java APIs Fair Use, Says Jury

The fight between Google and Oracle over the Java platform, specially the API (Application programming interface) for the program and its copyright protection, has been raging for what feels like aeons. This blog has discussed the Court of Appeals (where Google was found to have infringed the code's copyright protection through verbatim copying into its Android operating system) decision some two years ago, but many have waited for the jury decision in the saga, which was handed down only a month ago.

By way of a short primer for those who have not followed the matter closely, the case dealt with 37 API packages released by Oracle (at the time Sun Microsystems) which pertained to its Java platform. Google sought to implement Java into its budding mobile operating system, Android, but both parties could not agree on a proper licencing arrangement. Nevertheless, Google implemented the APIs into its own platform, Dalvik, which consisted of 160 different APIs (of which 37 were Java APIs). Due their verbatim copying into the Dalvik platform, Oracle took Google to court, asserting copyright infringement.

After the earlier decision in various stages in the US judicial system, Google consistently lost and was deemed to have infringed the copyright in the APIs. The jury in this instance sought to look at whether Google's use amounted to fair use, and thus not infringing the rights in the works. This decision was hugely important, as Google faced damages totalling nearly $10 billion.

Blake couldn't contain himself at the thought of
unlimited, free APIs

Judge Alsup gave extensive instructions to the jury as to their assessment on fair use under US law. The jury decided the matter in three days, reaching a unanimous verdict of a finding of fair use by Google. One could argue against their finding of fair use, with Google's use not being prima facie very transformative (due to the verbatim copying of code); however, building the Android platform using the Java API did change it to something more than just Java. The judge also emphasised the fourth factor, the effect of the copying on the potential market for the work, which, in this writer's mind, could have been the linchpin for the jury's decision. Even though Java is implemented into many systems, it in itself is not an operating system, although its free incorporation into such clearly would impact on its potential market. The jury saw that Google's use was fair, and one can only wonder what persuaded them to reach the conclusion.

Although there is not much to discuss on the substantive side of the case, as is usual in this blog, the decision still is an important development in the world of technology and computer programming. As Google's statement on the win expresses: "Today's verdict that Android makes fair use of Java APIs represents a win for the Android ecosystem, for the Java programming community, and for software developers who rely on open and free programming languages to build innovative consumer products". Arguably, Google does have a point. Java has become night ubiquitous in the computing sphere (although the emergence of HTML5 could, arguably, make it obsolete), and a lack of an ability to use the technology would severely hinder any attempts of building a popular, fleshed-out operating system. On the other side of the coin, this is a blow for reaping from what you've sown, and Oracle has a right to be upset with their loss (and incredibly monetary loss through unacquired licencing fees for the hugely popular Android platform).

Many in the software industry seem to welcome the decision, such as Al Hilwa, who saw that "... most developers would likely prefer not to be burdened by copyrights around APIs". This writer is puzzled with this response, since many programmers might not be so keen to share the fruits of their labor for free. Oracle have indicated that they will appeal the decision, and this writer keenly awaits any new developments in the never-ending story that is Oracle v Google.

Source: BBC News

APIs Protected By Copyright, Programmers Stand Aghast

The more and more information becomes digitized and hidden beyond a invisible wall to the layman in the form of code and programming languages, the more convoluted its application can become in the world of intellectual property law. One phenomenon of this world are APIs, or in other words, Application Programming Interfaces. APIs are software-to-software applications released by companies, like Google, which enable other developers to more easily access and use their services, such as embedding Google's search services onto a web blog allowing for readers to search the site more easily. Effectively it allows for the two applications to communicate between each other without any interference by the users themselves. APIs have been fought over for some time by the two tech giants, Google and Oracle, since 2012, and came to a head early last month in the US Court of Appeals.

The case, decided in May 2014, dealt with 37 API packages released by Oracle (at the time Sun Microsystems) which pertained to its Java platform. The two parties, Google and Oracle, attempted to reach an agreement to use the Java platform in Google's new mobile operating system, Android, but failed to do so eventually. Nevertheless Google developed its own similar platform to be used in Android, Dalvik, which consisted of over 160 APIs, of which 37 corresponded to the Java APIs in contention; something which Google had copied verbatim into its own code. Oracle subsequently took Google to court over copyright infringement, and in a decision by the District Court of California some two years ago the court saw that APIs were not copyrightable. Oracle appealed the decision, which ended up in the Court of Appeals last year.

Many developers' thoughts after the decision 

Under the 'merge' doctrine, if there is only a finite amount of ways through which an idea can be expressed it is said to 'merge' the idea-expression doctrine, or in other words, prevents copyright from protecting the expression as part and parcel to the idea. Should there only be a single way to implement said idea no copyright protection will be given to the merged idea. The District Court initially saw that Oracle could not protect its APIs as their expression was the idea, and could not be protected. On appeal the Court of Appeal saw different, deciding that the copied code could have been implemented in unlimited ways, not limiting the expression of the idea and warranting copyrightability. The declaration of the source code by Oracle therefore does not preclude its copyrightability, as was seen by the District Court initially. Even if the code consists of short phrases or sentences, i.e. lines of code, it does not preclude copyright protection.

Should the disputed APIs be merely a system or a method of operation, they cannot be protected under copyright. A myriad of cases have stated that programs and code cannot be protected by copyright; however the approach by the District Court was seen as being erroneous. Under the Court of Appeals' decision even though computer programs contain functional elements it does not fully leave out the possibility that they may contain elements which are protected by copyright. This does not completely cover the effect of the program, but merely the expression within that code for that function. Should Google have implemented that very function through a different expression, there would be no risk of infringement.

Google's last argument was for interoperability, in that the verbatim copying of Oracle's code was essential for the interoperability of Java and Android, initially supported by the District Court. However, the Court of Appeals saw differently, as precedent heavily approached interoperability as a fair use right, not as a requirement for copyrightability. This gave the final blow to Google's argument in the appeal case, with the Court of Appeals fully rejecting the District Court's initial decision and deciding that APIs could be protected by copyright.

Needless to say this decision has created quite the fervor and will undoubtedly be appealed on Google's part. The precedent set can be argued to be dangerous, and present a hurdle for the free development of technology, at least on the programming side. As more and more programs have to be able to interact with each other for a convenient, practical and fast experience for the consumer, locking down APIs can hinder this development quite significantly. Developers could be cherry-picked or even prevented from using certain APIs or even charged exorbitant amounts for their use; however this is pure speculation. Whether the case goes further will remain to be seen, and will set an interesting cloud over the programming sphere for the time being.

Source: Ars Technica

Retrospective - Manner of Manufacture in Australia

With the Myriad Genetics appeal here in Australia looming in the near future, I thought it'd be time to discuss an important aspect in the case, both at first instance and in the appeal; what can be classed as being a 'manner of manufacture'? To give more clarity as to where this stems from, a component for an invention to be patentable is that is has to be 'a manner of manufacture' under the Patents Act 1990. This requirement dates as far back as the Statute of Monopolies 1623 in England. What can be classed as such has not been restricted to a literal meaning of the phrase, but has encompassed a wide variety of things, not purely industrial inventions relating to the manufacture of goods. The leading case in Australia in what can be seen as a 'manner of manufacture' is National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, often referred to simply as the NRDC case.

The bane of every budding farmer

NRDC concerned a patent relating to the killing of weed plants in agriculture. NRDC had developed a method of using previously known chemicals and applying them directly to the soil, killing weed plants but still retaining the crops. What was new in this invention was that the chemicals only killed the weeds if applied in this specific manner, when it was previously believed they would not have this effect. NRDC applied for a patent for their invention which was rejected by the Patent Office based on the fact that it was not a manner of manufacture under the (at the time in force) Patents Act 1952 as the chemicals used were already known and their application in that manner would not constitute a 'vendible product'. The matter was taken further to the Deputy Commissioner of Patents, who also rejected the patent based on the same facts. NRDC subsequently appealed and the case went all the way up to the High Court of Australia in 1959.

The High Court therefore had the final say in determining whether NRDC's invention was indeed a 'manner of manufacture' under the 1952 Act, which was previously rejected both during the initial application and on its appeal. Their Honors considered other matters in the case, such as novelty, however these are not relevant to determine what can constitute a manner of manufacture; although equally still important as requirements for patentability in their own right.

A manufacturer with great manners

In their decision Justices Dixon, Kitto and Windeyer boiled down the matter into one single question: "Is this a proper subject of the letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?" This was, in their mind, a matter of weighing the old definition according to the evolution of patents and how they have been assessed relying on older precedents and formulating an approach that would encompass the considerations put forth prior. Their Honors considered the case of Re GEC's Application where Justice Morton formulated the definition for what could amount to a 'manner of manufacture': "a method or process is a manner of manufacture if it (a) results in the production of some vendible product or (b) improves or restores to its former condition a vendible product or (c) has the effect of preserving from deterioration some vendible product to which it is applied". The judges in NRDC criticized this approach as having a narrowing effect if given a literal interpretation. This however links a 'manner of manufacture' to the idea of a 'vendible product', which was the consideration taken into account in the Patent Office's decision regarding NRDC's patent. Putting forth a clarification on Justice Morton's 'rule', their Honors stated that "It is, we think, only by understanding the word "product" as covering every end produced, and treating the word "vendible" as pointing only to the requirement of utility in practical affairs, that the language of Morton J.'s "rule" may be accepted as wide enough to convey the broad idea which the long line of decisions on the subject has shown to be comprehended by the Statute." Their Honors therefore accepted Justice Morton's approach, but insisted that the term 'vendible product' be given a wide and generous interpretation so as to not limit it.

Setting out the test for what would amount to a 'manner of manufacture', their honors saw that the invention "...must be one that offers some advantage which is material... the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art... [and] that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour." Applying this to the case at hand their Honors saw that the method employed by the claimant fell squarely within the definition of a manner of manufacture. The method can be considered a 'product' as it consists of an artificial state of affairs which can be observed if looking at the growth of the crops and the weeds when used. The method also has a significant economic effect as it gives an advantage to its users, yielding more and better crops. Clearly it also is a useful art as opposed to a fine art. The judges accepted the appeal and saw that NRDC's application should be accepted as lodged.

As one can easily see, the test for what can amount to a 'manner of manufacture' is quite broad, and justifiably so. With new technologies evolving fast and new inventions taking on wholly new functions and applications, leaving the test narrow, much like in Justice Morton's test, would hinder the progress of industry and lower the desirability of patenting those inventions or methods. Even though the test was formulated over 60 years ago, it still plays an important part in modern litigation; most recently the genetic patent litigation (which was discussed on this blog previously here) involving Myriad Genetics. What the appeal will yield still remains to be seen, but whether the isolation of genes is a 'manner of manufacture' still plays an important part in that determination.

Grey Hair and L'Oreal's Fix

There aren't many words that strike fear into the hearts of people today quite like 'aging'. With every imaginable cream, solution and treatment being sold to people in the vein of preventing or even reversing aging, owning something which could revolutionize a part of that market could potentially yield huge amounts of revenue, as the market is being projected to be worth over 270 million dollars in 2013.

Not all men need hair color apparently

L'Oreal are currently own one such 'fix', as they have applied for a patent in 2004 for a treatment for grey hair. In their own words, this would be a permanent fix for the aging process regarding hair and their discoloration. The treatment would prevent hair from turning grey by mimicking an enzyme in the body by using a specific fruit extract. This enzyme, TRP-2, makes specific cells which give hair its distinct color called melanocytes. In theory therefore the treatment would prevent people's hair from going grey through natural means.

The efficacy of the treatment is still unknown, but one could argue that should the company be successful with the product, it's value could be immense. The treatment is an on-going one, potentially something one would have to take for the rest of their life should they want to retain their hair color, but the market for hair dyes could potentially be replaced from the older generations. The solution has been openly criticized for the compounds in contains, such as ones which are present in rotting fish and bad breath, but it can be argued that people would not mind so long as they can retain their lush blonde hair till their golden days.

Source: MSN

Grumpy Cat frowns at a possible trademark

Paris Fashion Week anyone?

As it has been said on this blog many times, the Internet has shaped the sphere where people can reproduce material easily as they see fit, regardless of its legality or not. There are websites dedicated to printing images onto t-shirts, coffee cups, plates and pretty much anything you can think of that just "needs" an image of something to make it worth your honest dollar. Merchandising often is a huge part of a brand's profits, after all, who doesn't find a Winnie the Pooh onesie an essential part of their wardrobe? Trademarks more often than not prevent people from profiting from the misuse of their trademarked image in the making and selling of products such as the above. But where does the line of what can be trademarked end?

Trademarks can be awarded to a potentially any image, and the latest and the greatest seeking one is the Internet's favorite upset kitty, Grumpy Cat. For the less informed, the cat oddly named Tardar Sauce, rose to fame over a year ago due to its constant look of disappointment at anything it might be in contact with. Its owners, rightfully so, launched a website dedicated to their aggravated feline companion, selling a number of items adorning its famous face. Without a trademark, others could potentially use the cat's image, create their own merchandise to sell, and thus benefit from the rise to fame that the cat has so thoroughly "enjoyed".

What the cat's owners are seeking is protection for both the name "Grumpy Cat" and its likeness for use in a very wide array of things, even kitchen utensils (why anyone would want to see the look of disappointment when eating their goulash, I don't know). The application is still pending, having been lodged in late January, we will have to wait and see whether the trademark is awarded. In this writer's opinion this will be an interesting result. Would the face of a cat be distinct enough for it to be trademarked? Surely cats' fur color and other details are fairly 'random', albeit controlled by genetics - however in this case the cat's facial features are incredibly uncommon (this writer has never seen a cat much like this one in his life), and might because of that be trademarkable. Come what may, Tardar Sauce will surely be unhappy with the outcome.

Grumpy Cat didn't approve of this blog post

The application in itself is not very important, but goes to show just how widely trademarks can be, and are, used in today's marketable world. Does it have worth in merchandising or otherwise? It might just be worth trademarking.