I remember looking this up at some point re articles on VCA intellectual property claims
Originally the status seemed that VCA did not have copyright but regained it via foreign counsel . However, in the case against Heidi Klum, VCA admitted it had been refused by the US copyright office. (See bottom for the link to the klum case)
NOte: I just googled this stuff randomly; I have no knowledge of intellectual property law; perhaps another TPFer will come along to correct or refine this. ..
(
https://www.springutlaw.com/45m-damages-award-against-knockoff-watches)
Quote:
Van Cleef & Arpels is a world famous fashion house, known as the “Jeweler to Royalty.” Among its successful products is its Alhambra jewelry line. First designed and introduced in 1968, in the last decade it has enjoyed a revival, with skyrocketing sales and abundant media exposure. But with success comes imitation – knockoff jewelry at all price levels became rampant.
Van Cleef had a copyright registration for the Alhambra design. However, when introduced in the United States in the late 1960s, the items in the line lacked a copyright notice. Under the law in effect at the time, that meant loss of copyright.
Our lawyers succeeded in establishing that Van Cleef was entitled to a restoration of the copyright under the little known Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act, which restored foreign copyrights in such situations. This required a detailed showing of the history of creation and publication of the work in the U.S. and abroad. Working with foreign counsel, our lawyers were able to make a compelling showing, and obtained a summary judgment ruling that Van Cleef owned a valid and subsisting copyright in the design.
But here are some other, more recent articles that invalidate the right
On July 20, 2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court
www.natlawreview.com
Van Cleef & Arpels is a French luxury jewelry company. Of all the jewelry motifs created by them, perhaps the most widely acknowledged and emblematic…
www.lexology.com
Created in 1968 as a luxurious take on the four-leaf clover, a timeless symbol of luck, Van Cleef & Arpels’ Alhambra jewelry collection is among its
www.thefashionlaw.com
also, see, where there was a quick settlement with Heidi Klums company (if VCA felt its position was strong, then they would not have so quickly gone to settlement)
A copyright infringement, trade dress infringement (Lanham Act 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125), and unfair competition lawsuit was filed by luxury jeweler Van Cleef & Arpels against supermodel Heidi ...
www.iptrademarkattorney.com
Settlement Ostensibly on these grounds (quote from the article):
It now appears that the lawsuit is going to be settled even before the Defendants file an answer to Van Cleef’s allegations. On February 13, 2008, the parties asked the Court to adjourn the initial conference from February to April while they negotiate a settlement of the case.
PRACTICE NOTE: It is interesting that the case is settling so quickly because Van Cleef admits that one of its applications for copyright registration was refused registration by the U.S. Copyright Office. I would predict that it was refused registration because it was a mere depiction –without any elements of originality– of a four leaf clover that appears in nature. Even if the copyright claim fails, however, Van Cleef appears to have acquired distinctiveness in its four leaf clover jewelry to assert its trade dress infringement and unfair competition claims, which exist outside of the copyright claims.
This is very educational. It sounds as if anyone can legally copy VCA.
Interesting that China gave VCA protection until someone sued. The courts seemed quick to side with the complainant(s).
