Dressing up as Pippi Longstocking is not unfair, either

In a case reported here, the right-holders of the work of Astrid Lindgren had sued a supermarket offering carnival costumes of the literary figure of Pippi Longstocking for infringement of copyright and unfair competition.  The alleged acts of infringement included distributing a prospectus with models being dressed with the costume.

According to the case-law, the utilization of work products of third parties is generally allowable but can be considered unfair if specific circumstances appear to justify this finding.

The action had been dismissed by the BGH insofar as copyright was concerned and had been remitted to the 2nd instance (OLG) to re-assess the claims based on competition law. The OLG found that the pictures with the models could be considered to be an imitation in the sense of § 4 Nr. 9 Buchst. a und b UWG but rejected these claims because no specific circumstances rendering the imitation unfair were recognizable.

The case went back to the BGH which confirmed the result but for different reasons. According to the BGH, the imitation of a character of a novel by transferring features having features of competitive individual character into other product classes as this is the case for carnival costumes is possible but must not be assessed based on low requirements ("keine geringen Anforderungen"). In the case at issue, the overlap between the features characterizing the literary figure of Pippi Longstocking and the design of the carnival costume is sufficiently small to exclude an imitation.

This applies to alleged imitations the character in the novel as such and is without prejudice to the claims based on unfair imitation of actual merchandizing products offered by the right-holder.

Is it unfair to account for compatibility with design characteristics of copetitors?

The question of whether or not the adaption of design features, in order to integrate a product into a series or a system developed and designed by a third party, offends the principle of fair competition has been under heavy dispute in the past.

While the BGH had ruled in the decision "Klemmbausteine II" (Urt. v. 7.5.1992 - I ZR 163/90, GRUR 1992, 619 = WRP 1992, 642)that such an integration into a series of a third party (in the case at issue, the products were plastic bricks matching Lego breaks constitutes an unfair profiting of the achievements of that third party.

However, this rule was put into perspective with the subsequent decision “Klemmbausteine III” (I ZR 30/02) and "Modulgerüst" according to which this subsequent protection against inserttion into a series of a third party should be at least limited in time. According to the Senate, the term of protection should be based on the term of protection of similar industrial property rights such as patents or registered designs. However, a legitimate interest of the author of a series of product to be protected against insertions into the series was recognized.

The two recent decisions “Regalsystem” (I ZR 136/11), and "Einkaufswagen III" constitute surprising turning point in this line of decisions. According to the decision “Einkaufswagen III”, the fact that an interest of customers in optically compatible products in view of the need of replacement or enlargement exists is no indication for an inappropriate exploitation of the valuation of the imitated product, but rather an indication to the contrary. If a need for replacement using optically compatible products exists of the side of the customers, an inappropriate exploitation of the valuation of the counterfeit product may be excluded even if the aesthetic design features are adopted almost identically.

One decisive factor is the question whether or not the salability of a product with differing design features would be reduced as compared to the product with imitated design features (BGH “Regalsystem” I ZR 136/11).

Originality not Required

The latest part (I ZR 21/11) in the recent series of interesting decisions on design protection under German unfair competition (see e.g. (here) law relates to a toy set with a box having a glass bottom, a bag of sand and some tools to create patterns in the sand spread on the bottom.

The set had been protected by a utility model, which, however had expired when a competitor started to sell highly similar toy sets. The court in the 2nd instance had rejected the claims by arguing that the realization of a general idea using only basic shapes could not lend a "competitive character" to the design in the sense that the design could be construed as an indication of the commercial origin of the product by the public.

The BGH disagreed and argued that restriction to the use of basic shapes might lead to a puristic design which could be considered characterizing for the commercial origin of the goods such that copying the design could be an avoidable deception on the commercial origin of the goods.

Originality of individual features of the design is not required. Decisive is rather the overall impression.