-
Yeah I see what you mean. And what I meant was that, over time, designs shouldn't be protected, or at least not for fashion...the new design has been invented, innovated, dispersed and is now widely available. Time to let go. I don't think because a company had one good idea they should be able to cash in on it singularly, and forever. Like the Christian Louboutin red heel trademark. "The law should not countenance restraints that would interfere with creativity and stifle competition by one designer, while granting another a monopoly invested with the right to exclude use of an ornamental or functional medium necessary for freest and most productive artistic expression by all engaged in the same enterprise." Obviously Louboutin won (and was supported by Tiffany's as you rightly mentioned).
-
The forum was a curious place at that time.
The forum is still a rather curious place. :)
You are reading a single comment by @Chopsicle and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
umop3pisdn
youramericanlover
Oliver Schick
@Chopsicle
I guess my point was that I was amazed at the time (and still am) that people were sympathetic to such lazy, blatant copying coupled with (an active?) naivety. The forum was a curious place at that time.
'Their trademark for the purple colour was in fact ruled invalid when challenged by Nestle.'
ah-ha, didn't realise this, bad example, confectionary must be a warzone for this sort of thing! The general point was; Tiffany teal(?) box for jewellery, Dyno Rod orange drain cleaning vans, whatever, a detail over time establishes a status which can be protected & strengthened within that specific field.