Fashion Upcycling as Protected Free Speech in Trademark Law external link

University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 31, iss. : 2, pp: 349-387, 2024

Abstract

Fashion upcycling offers unprecedented opportunities for the sustainable reuse of clothing. Using second-hand garments as raw material for new creations, upcyclers transform used pieces of clothing into new fashion products that may become even more sought-after than the original source material. The more fashion elements enjoy trademark protection; however, the more legal obstacles arise. Fashion upcycling may trigger allegations of consumer confusion, brand dilution, and unfair freeriding. As the Introduction will explain, the exhaustion of trademark rights after the first sale does not necessarily dispel concerns about trademark infringement. The rearrangement of branded garment components in the upcycling process may render the first sale doctrine inapplicable and give the trademark proprietor ammunition to oppose the resale. Against this background, the analysis explores other strategies to assure fashion upcyclers that, as long as they do not specifically aim at misleading consumers or damaging and exploiting protected brand insignia, they can rework trademarked fashion items without risking the verdict of infringement. To lay groundwork for this approach, Section I focuses on trademark theory that stresses the need to develop a specific set of rules capable of shielding the expressive use of trademarks against allegations of trademark infringement. In the light of cultural sciences, Section II demonstrates that fashion upcycling constitutes a specific form of artistic speech – and a specific form of expressive trademark use – that has particular societal value in the current environmental crisis. It offers a vision of alternative, more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Therefore, fashion upcycling should benefit from breathing space for free speech in trademark law. Taking this insight as a starting point, Section III discusses two avenues for supporting fashion upcycling in trademark contexts: first, the option of adopting a strict test of use as a trademark that could immunize sustainable fashion reuse from allegations of trademark infringement on the ground that consumers will understand the specific reuse context and perceive third-party trademarks on circular economy products as mere decorative elements. Second, the option of strengthening defenses, in particular the referential use defense, by developing labelling guidelines that allow upcyclers to ensure compliance with the requirement of honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. The Conclusion offers concluding remarks. The EU trademark system – the Trade Mark Regulation (“EUTMR”) and the Trade Mark Directive (“TMD”) – will serve as a reference point for the discussion.

Fashion, Freedom of Speech, Trademark law

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Fashion Upcycling as Protected Free Speech in Trademark Law}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol31/iss2/5/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-04-06}, journal = {University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review}, volume = {31}, issue = {2}, pages = {349-387}, abstract = {Fashion upcycling offers unprecedented opportunities for the sustainable reuse of clothing. Using second-hand garments as raw material for new creations, upcyclers transform used pieces of clothing into new fashion products that may become even more sought-after than the original source material. The more fashion elements enjoy trademark protection; however, the more legal obstacles arise. Fashion upcycling may trigger allegations of consumer confusion, brand dilution, and unfair freeriding. As the Introduction will explain, the exhaustion of trademark rights after the first sale does not necessarily dispel concerns about trademark infringement. The rearrangement of branded garment components in the upcycling process may render the first sale doctrine inapplicable and give the trademark proprietor ammunition to oppose the resale. Against this background, the analysis explores other strategies to assure fashion upcyclers that, as long as they do not specifically aim at misleading consumers or damaging and exploiting protected brand insignia, they can rework trademarked fashion items without risking the verdict of infringement. To lay groundwork for this approach, Section I focuses on trademark theory that stresses the need to develop a specific set of rules capable of shielding the expressive use of trademarks against allegations of trademark infringement. In the light of cultural sciences, Section II demonstrates that fashion upcycling constitutes a specific form of artistic speech – and a specific form of expressive trademark use – that has particular societal value in the current environmental crisis. It offers a vision of alternative, more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Therefore, fashion upcycling should benefit from breathing space for free speech in trademark law. Taking this insight as a starting point, Section III discusses two avenues for supporting fashion upcycling in trademark contexts: first, the option of adopting a strict test of use as a trademark that could immunize sustainable fashion reuse from allegations of trademark infringement on the ground that consumers will understand the specific reuse context and perceive third-party trademarks on circular economy products as mere decorative elements. Second, the option of strengthening defenses, in particular the referential use defense, by developing labelling guidelines that allow upcyclers to ensure compliance with the requirement of honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. The Conclusion offers concluding remarks. The EU trademark system – the Trade Mark Regulation (“EUTMR”) and the Trade Mark Directive (“TMD”) – will serve as a reference point for the discussion.}, keywords = {Fashion, Freedom of Speech, Trademark law}, }

Annotatie Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens 14 februari 2023 (Luxleaks) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 11, num: 108, pp: 2760-2762, 2024

Freedom of Speech, klokkenluiders

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens 14 februari 2023 (Luxleaks)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/annotatie-europees-hof-voor-de-rechten-van-de-mens-14-februari-2024-luxleaks/annotatie_nj_2024_108/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-04-25}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, issue = {11}, number = {108}, keywords = {Freedom of Speech, klokkenluiders}, }

Privacy, Freedom of Expression, and the Right to Be Forgotten in Europe external link

forthcoming in J. Polonetsky, O. Tene, E. Selinger (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy, 2017, 0302

Abstract

In this chapter we discuss the relation between privacy and freedom of expression in Europe. In principle, the two rights have equal weight in Europe – which right prevails depends on the circumstances of a case. We use the Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, sometimes called the ‘right to be forgotten’ judgment, to illustrate the difficulties when balancing the two rights. The court decided in Google Spain that people have, under certain conditions, the right to have search results for their name delisted. We discuss how Google and Data Protection Authorities deal with such delisting requests in practice. Delisting requests illustrate that balancing privacy and freedom of expression interests will always remain difficult.

Criminal Conviction, Dutch Law, Freedom of expression, Freedom of Speech, frontpage, Personal data, Privacy, right to be forgotten, Search Engine, Sensitive Data, Special Categories of Data

Bibtex

Chapter{Kulk2017, title = {Privacy, Freedom of Expression, and the Right to Be Forgotten in Europe}, author = {Kulk, S. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2923722}, year = {0302}, date = {2017-03-02}, abstract = {In this chapter we discuss the relation between privacy and freedom of expression in Europe. In principle, the two rights have equal weight in Europe – which right prevails depends on the circumstances of a case. We use the Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, sometimes called the ‘right to be forgotten’ judgment, to illustrate the difficulties when balancing the two rights. The court decided in Google Spain that people have, under certain conditions, the right to have search results for their name delisted. We discuss how Google and Data Protection Authorities deal with such delisting requests in practice. Delisting requests illustrate that balancing privacy and freedom of expression interests will always remain difficult.}, keywords = {Criminal Conviction, Dutch Law, Freedom of expression, Freedom of Speech, frontpage, Personal data, Privacy, right to be forgotten, Search Engine, Sensitive Data, Special Categories of Data}, }