Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All Star design
The Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers are undoubtedly Converse’s most iconic shoes. However, many retailers and competitors have been employing similar looks for years. Converse has filed suits against 31 retailers on trademark infringement grounds, requesting damages and injunctions, which could prevent competitors from selling similar shoes. Since shoes are not subject to copyright protection in the US, Converse’s claims are limited to the trademark arena. This may be a difficult case for Converse, however, since it needs to show evidence that customers bought the defendant’s shoes thinking they were manufactured by Converse. Moreover, Converse could be jeopardizing his signature trademark if it is not able to demonstrate public opposition against the widespread existence of similar products.
French Court rules that shoe design copyright was not infringed
Can shoe designs be protected under copyright law? Not in the US, but certainly in France. While US shoe designers must protect their creations through “trademarks,” “trade dress” or “design patent,” French law establishes that shoes can be protected as copyrights, provided that they are “original.” The term “original” has not been clearly defined, but French courts have established that a work is considered “original” when it reflects the personality of the author. Recently, the Paris Court had to determine the originality of a shoe in a case of copyright infringement filed by Apple Shoes against Sonia Rykiel. Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had failed to produce evidence on the creative process leading up to the model of shoes. The Court ruled that the shoes were original, but that the defendant’s shoes were not similar and hence did not infringe on the plaintiff’s copyright.
Oklahoma Court rules that Facebook notifications do not satisfy notice requirement
Oklahoma’s highest civil court ruled that a Facebook message alone does not satisfy the notice requirement, reversing the lower courts’ rulings. Justice Douglas Combs, writing from the majority, expressed that “[Facebook] is an unreliable method of communication… This Court is unwilling to declare notice via Facebook alone sufficient to meet the requirements of the due process clauses of the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions because it is not reasonably certain to inform those affected.” In a dissenting opinion, Justice Winchester considered Facebook notifications as valid, pointing out that even letters or by faxes may not reach the recipient.