SoylentNews

canopic jug [soylentnews.org] writes:

Techdirt covers the graffitti artist Banksy's loss of a trademark suit against a greeting card company, over one of his more famous defacements. Techdirt describes it as a weak-ass attempt to abuse trademark law [techdirt.com]:

Nearly a year ago we wrote about the somewhat complex (and misunderstood by many) trademark dispute involving Banksy [techdirt.com]. There is a lot of background here, so I'm going to try to go with the abbreviated version. Banksy -- who has claimed that "copyright is for losers" -- has always refused to copyright his random graffiti-based art. However, as it now becomes clear, one reason he's avoided using copyright is because to register the work, he'd likely have to reveal his real name. Instead, it appears he's spent a few years abusing trademark law to try to trademark some of his artwork, including his famous "flower bomber" image, which was registered to a company called Pest Control Office Limited. Of course, to get a trademark, you have to use it in commerce, and many Banksy creations don't fit that criteria.

On the same case, an article which appear to intentionally confuse trademarks and copyrights and use them interchangably, The Telegraph writes that the graffittist lost trademark over one of his more famous works [telegraph.co.uk]. While the judge in this case has insinuated that copyright might not apply to graffitti, Banksy's attempt to use of trademark to prevent commercialization of his graffitti has been upended:

But now the anonymous street artist has been stripped of a trademark for his most famous artwork, the “Flower Thrower”, because he failed to reveal his identity to judges and was found to have dishonestly conducted parts of his legal battle with a UK card company.

The ruling could see the Bristol artist’s other applications to protect legally his creations challenged in the UK, Europe and America.

In a scathing judgment following a two year fight with card makers Full Colour Black, three judges said Banksy had made freely available graffiti he secretly daubed on other people’s property and repeatedly insisted he did not want to use it on merchandise.

[...] Although the judges were only considering Banksy’s trademark, a mechanism designed for consumers to identify origins of goods and services, they noted that if ever he applied to exert rights over his graffiti using copyright laws, meant to protect artworks, “it would be quite difficult” to do so while he remained anonymous and relied only on a company to represent him in court.

Copyright, trademark, patents, and trade secrets remain separate despite ongoing attempts to muddle and confuse the public.

Original Submission