Recently, Julia Shapovalova, the head of the intellectual property department of the international law firm "KODEX", has received from her friend a photo taken in Duty Free - a bottle of perfumery of the notorious Moschino brand. Read what happened next ...
This photo reminded that the Moschino company is a constant "user" of the various objects of intellectual property of other persons. Windex is an American sign for goods and services under which a detergent for the windows of the company S.C. Johnson is sold. In this case, we can safely say about violation of the rights to several objects. The first is an industrial design. The second is a sign for goods and services. And the third copyright violation, if you put your mind to and prove the originality and creative character of the bottle.
The number of contentious issues may arise regarding the violation of the copyright and trademark rights for goods and services, but the rights to the industrial design are directly violated (in the case of duly formalized rights). Industrial designs are registered in certain classes according to the Locarno classification. A bottle, both Windex bottle and Moschino bottle, must be registered in class 9, which includes tare, packaging and containers for transportation.
Sure enough that the most interesting question in this situation is whether it is worth resisting such a violation of the rights?
It seems to me that the Moschino company not often gets permission to use the intellectual property of other persons or somehow arranges such use of it. According to my observations, there is no news about the joint cooperation of "Moschino" with, for example, S.C. Johnson. At the same time, one of the last masterpieces by Moschino is a beach collection with prints of the candies and field from the "Candy Crush" game application (by the way, this game simply makes you addictive to it with its beauty). In so doing, all photos from this collection are signed in the following way: "Moschino + Candy Crush capsule", which, most likely, tells us that in this case the rights to use the intellectual property are legitimate - Yulia justified her position.
If you need our consultation, please send us your request - firstname.lastname@example.org