According to them, “BP’s slick green logo doesn’t suit a company that wants to invest in tar sands, the dirtiest oil there currently is.”

Contestants are encouraged to modify the logo to match evil BP’s actions.

Modifying someone’s artwork (this one created by Jeanette Hodge, a Landor & Associates subcontractor) without permission is, of course, copyright infringement.

Greenpeace know this, and have nicely agreed in the terms of entry to “indemnify you against any legal claim arising from Greenpeace’s use of your design”. In other words, if you get into trouble, Greenpeace donations will pay for your legal fees.

BP is stuck. They won’t like what Greenpeace are doing and can easily sue everyone. But at present, this will just generate more negative publicity, which is precisely why Greenpeace are provoking them.

Design broking website Logomyway are holding an almost identical competition.

An unintended side effect of the Australian government’s new Resale Royalty Right scheme is that some commercial creatives may receive a royalty on corporate identity sales because the scheme covers digital artworks (not just the sale of physical canvasses).

The most likely scenario is when company goes into liquidation and the liquidator decides to sell its assets via auction. Usually machinery and vehicles are auctioned, but any company asset can be sold this way – including trade marks, corporate identities, photographic images.

Corporate identities become much more valuable than the original design fees.

If the Nike corporate identity was auctioned off and it achieved its $13 billion value, the designer – famously paid $35 for the logo – could arguably be entitled to $659 million.

Of course, it doesn’t need to be a Nike scenario. Many Australian consumer brands fetch millions.

Designers could end up with unexpected payments.

I did one for design students on behalf of IP Australia on 20 April.

My next seminar will be for fashion designers and retailers, on 13 May. Also joining me on the podium will be:

Kate Vandermeer – Director, iSpyStyle
Eddie Zammit – Founder, T-World and Principal and Creative Director Grin Creative
Ivan Gomez – Managing Director, Department Of The Future

They’re going to grill me, asking me questions about protection from a designer’s perspective, so you can expect to hear about real-life case studies and get practical tips and information.

Time: 5:30pm
Location: ACMI Cinemas, Federation Square

More details and booking here.

The following week, I’ll do one for the City of Glen Eira, focussing on brand protection for small to medium sized businesses. I’ll be sharing the stage with Jeremy Chard of burger restaurant chain Grill’d, one of Australia’s fastest growing franchises.

Date: 17 May 2010
Time: 6pm
Location: Glen Eira Town Hall

More details and booking here.

Hope to see you there!

Most lawyers would automatically say no.

Instinctively, because it smells wrong, and surely is a clear indication of bad faith.

As has now been reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, that’s not what happened. Microbusiness Wholesale Central applied for a logo mark containing the letters DOPI – obviously iPod spelt backwards (although they said it stood for “Digital Options and Personalised Items”) – for MP3 players and accessories. You might remember that we first mentioned this story in October 2009.

Apple opposed, and it went to a hearing. The Hearings Officer threw out Apple’s argument that it was deceptively similar, denying Apple’s claim that the use of “i” indicated membership of the Apple family of marks. The same thing happened with a bad faith argument – the Hearings Officer pointed out a number of other iMarks owned by third parties.

The story has now been picked up worldwide, from India to China, trade media to blogs.

It’ll be a conversation between Eddie Zammit, t-shirt collector and editor of T-World magazine, and I.

If you want to know more about intellectual property and protection of fashion designs, come along! I’ll try to get copies of IP Australia’s guide on IP and fashion, Fashion Rules, for all attendees.

Other forum sessions feature fantastic guest speakers, from Australia and overseas.

Tickets here.

PS. Just heard that there aren’t many tickets left, so better act quickly if you’re interested.

Warner Bros pulled out the trade mark and copyright guns and alleged infringement.

This reminds me of the time Disney told a kindergarten they weren’t allowed to have a Disney themed concert.

Can the studios prevent themed parties?

Not if they’re private. It wouldn’t make sense and it would be very difficult to show infringement. But the moment any money changes hands, organisers potentially fall into their sights. Ms Marmite Lover, the organiser, pleads on her blog that she makes very little money from dinner parties. Little money is still money which is still use in a trading/business context.

At the end of their letter, Warner Bros said that they had no problem with a generic wizard/Halloween theme, but some guests came as Harry Potter characters anyway.

It shows that Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Enterprises is opposing trade mark applications for V Australia by a company associated with locally owned airline Virgin Blue. Huh? Virgin is opposing itself?

Normally, Virgin Enterprises owns all Virgin trade marks (Virgin Mobile, Virgin Superannuation etc) and licenses them to its joint venture partners. Sir Richard is, after all, an expert licensor. In this case, the Australian company beat Sir Richard to filing a trade mark application, and we can only guess that he doesn’t like it. I told the Age/SMH that if the Australians are successful, this would probably be the first time Sir Richard has lost control of any part of his brand.

The parties have taken 21 months to negotiate a resolution, and there does not appear to be an answer yet.

All well and good, except that when she tried to register a trade mark in Australia for her name, her signature and her logo, she ran into an opposition from Australian company Mischa Accessories, which distributes handbags.

Likelihood of confusion between the two Mischas? In an interview, I asked Larry Emder, and he said he thinks he’d be confused! That’s good news for Mischa Accessories, but they’ll have to show that the rest of the market feels that way too.

Similarities are lots of open space and broad, clean tables with equipment for customers to try.

Perhaps Microsoft was inspired by the design of Apple stores, which have certainly been successful in showcasing Apple products.

The real issue is whether Microsoft is legally able to do this.

And the answer is yes.

There is no ownership in the concept of a big, open store with lots of space and equipment on tables. Apple may be the first computer company to make the concept a key part of its brand, but being first is not enough. A much higher standard of originality would be needed for the possibility of any protection.

Unique shopfittings, signage, lighting and items of furniture can potentially be protected through registration but store designs/layouts are generally unprotectable.

Now it seems AP had correctly identified the source photo after all. Worse, Fairey has admitted fabricating evidence: “In an attempt to conceal my mistake, I submitted false images and deleted other images. I sincerely apologise for my lapse in judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions, which were mine alone.”

His whole defence was based on ‘fair use’. Now that his actions have been revealed to be suspect, it will be very difficult to convince the court of ‘fairness’.