British graffiti artist Banksy has lost a legal battle against the British greeting card company Full Color Black Ltd., as well as lost a European Union (EU) trademark for one of his works of art.
–
Content will continue after the ad
Advertising
–
The EU Intellectual Property Office’s Cancellation Division ruled this week that Banksy’s trademark for Flower Thrower had been applied for in bad faith and declared it “completely invalid”.
This work, also known as “Love is in The Air,” was created by Banksy in 2005 in Jerusalem. It depicts a young protester with a half-covered face and a hat on his head throwing a bouquet of flowers.
This decision, which is subject to appeal, followed a dispute between Full Color Black Ltd. and Pest Control Office Ltd., which authenticates Banks’ works and handles requests for them. Banksy’s real name and identity are unknown.
Full Color Black, which sells products printed with images of Banksy’s work, claimed that Benchy’s 2014 trademark for his work “Flower Thrower” should be revoked because Banksy had not used it. The company argued that Bankssie applied for the mark only to prevent “further use of this work, which he had already allowed to be reproduced”.
The greeting card maker also noted that Banksy wrote in one of his books that “copyright belongs to losers.”
Even after Full Color Black had filed a lawsuit, Banksy opened an online store called Gross Domestic Product to sell his work. However, this action by Banks did not convince EU investigators.
“Mr Banksy began selling the goods only in the context of the present proceedings, but specifically provided that they were to be sold only for the purpose of overcoming the marks in the proceedings. [argumentu par tās] not to use these goods, “the investigators wrote in their decision.
Referring to Banks’ contempt for intellectual property rights, the investigators also suggested that the artist’s choice to keep his identity secret had harmed him in the case.
“It should be noted that another factor worth considering is that he cannot be identified as the undisputed owner of such works because his identity is hidden,” the decision said. “Nor can it be unequivocally established that this artist has any copyright in graffiti [prečuzīme] Banks was claimed to have a legal right to the mark because he could not rely on copyright, but that is not a function of the trademark. “
–
