Techdirt. Stories filed under "furniture"

Dutch Appeals Court Says eBay Subsidiary Not Liable For Infringement By Users

Mike Masnick — Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:31:00 PDT

While the Dutch courts forced local ISPs to block The Pirate Bay, kicking off a hilariously pointless and never-ending game of whac-a-mole, it's still never been fully explained why TPB -- as an intermediary -- should be liable for the infringement done by its users. In fact, a new ruling in a Dutch appeals court seems to suggest that neutral intermediaries deserve full protection from liability for infringement by their users. The ruling seems to focus more on trademark, but also appears to reference copyright as well. It involves an eBay subsidiary, Markplaats, and Stokke, makers of a high chair, who felt there was infringement on Markplaats. The case seems similar, in many ways, to a number of trademark cases filed around the globe against eBay.

Here, the court said that a neutral intermediary is not responsible for infringement done by users, and cited last summer's European Court of Justice ruling in the eBay/L'Oreal case. We found that ruling to leave open way too many loopholes that would make intermediaries liable, but thankfully, the appeals court in the Netherlands recognized the key issues, and insisted that Marplaats retains its status as a neutral platform even though it provides many more functions beyond just hosting. The court found that since the functions it performs don't favor either buyers or sellers, it still is considered a "neutral" intermediary.

The court also looked at whether or not certain remedies that Stokke was pushing for made sense, and noted that injunctions that required pro-active monitoring to prevent infringement did not make sense, in part because they seemed disproportionate and expensive. It similarly rejects a "notice and stay-down" provision (like a notice and take-down, but which also requires proactive blocking of any future attempts to post something infringing), noting that such a system would be costly and provide little real benefit.

Overall, this latest ruling seems to make sense, and properly focuses the liability question away from the intermediary tool provider. However, I do wonder how the court rulings against The Pirate Bay (and against neutral proxy services) make sense under a similar light.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Furniture Designer Fights Copying By Busting Up Some Chairs

Leigh Beadon — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:06:00 PDT

For the most part, furniture designs can't be copyrighted. Just like fashion, which thrives without copyright, the furniture industry serves as an excellent example of why intellectual property is not necessary to promote innovation and commercial success. Copying happens in these industries, and while it's sometimes fought on trademark grounds, the prevalence of cheap knockoff products is an unavoidable reality. But cheap knockoffs are exactly that, and they meet the demands of a different market segment, where low price is more important than quality, so the original designers can compete either by focusing on their strength in the high-end market, by entering the lower market with their own cheaper products, or both.

Reader Baruch Moskovits points us to an example of the former in a video from furniture designer Republic of Fritz Hansen, makers of the popular Series 7 chair, which has an iconic (and frequently copied) design. The company is legally powerless to prevent copying, so they took a more pragmatic approach: smashing the knockoffs to pieces on YouTube—not for the catharsis, but to demonstrate how much better their original Series 7 chair holds up.

If you didn't watch the video, suffice to say the two knockoffs snap like twigs, while the original withstands the same punishment without any signs of damage. Fritz Hansen has rightly recognized what it offers that others don't, and has found a high-impact way of demonstrating this advantage. Naturally some people won't care: they will choose affordability over durability. But those people were probably never going to buy a $500 chair anyway, whether or not cheap alternatives for that specific design are available. Meanwhile, customers who value and can afford top-quality merchandise see a clear demonstration of what they're getting for their money, and one that reflects well not just on the Series 7 but on Fritz Hansen's entire line.

It's extremely rare, in any industry, for one creator to copy another without adding or changing something—a lower price point, better marketing, a better distribution model, a valuable curation service. This is how copying expands markets: originators and copiers must both focus the things that make them stand out, which means finding ways to make a product appeal to new and different people. Strong intellectual property protections exist to shut down such copying, but as industries like furniture and fashion demonstrate, this is unnecessary and potentially quite detrimental. Beating your competitors in court only proves that you were first—obliterating their products on YouTube proves that you're better.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Court Blocks Furniture Seller From Sending More DMCA Takedowns To eBay Over Competitor's Furniture

Mike Masnick — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:37:26 PST

It's no secret that the DMCA can be used as a form of censorship and anti-competitive practices. Thankfully, at least some judges are catching on. Evan Brown has the story of how Zen Path, a company that sells furniture online, had been sending DMCA takedowns to eBay, after noticing competitor Design Furnishings selling very similar wicker furniture on eBay. It turns out that both sellers had the same Chinese supplier. It did appear that Design Furnishings may have used Zen Path's photos for its sales, but later removed them. Where things got bizarre is that the company then claimed that Design Furnishings violated Zen Path's "copyrights or patents" in selling the furniture. When Design Furnishings asked for proof of either such violation, rather than provide such proof, Zen Path first filed for a copyright registration on the design (something it apparently had not done previously) and started sending lots of DMCA takedowns to eBay (63 such notices). eBay, to protect itself from DMCA liability, took down the auctions and lowered the ratings on Design Furnishings' account, given the high number of infringement notices.

Design Furnishings sued to get a restraining order against Zen Path's DMCA takedowns, and the court issued a temporary restraining order, noting that even Zen Path, by its own arguments, appeared to realize that it had no copyright interest in its wicker furniture:

Here, defendant's applications for copyright protection claimed the works were sculptures or 3-D artwork or ornamental designs, indicating that defendant knew the limits of copyright protection. The pictures of the furniture, though, suggest that defendant impermissibly sought protection of the "industrial design" of the furniture. Moreover, the internal contradiction in the applications raises a strong inference that defendant subjectively knew it did not have a copyright infringement claim when it notified eBay. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has a likelihood of success on the merits.

Furniture, as a useful item, is not copyrightable. You might be able to copyright a specific non-useful design element, but the overall furniture is simply not copyrightable. The court here is basically saying the fact that Zen Path clearly wanted to pretend that the chair was a sculpture was an indication that it knew the chairs themselves were not copyrightable, and thus filing the DMCA notices was an abuse of the DMCA.

It's pretty rare to see a court actually recognize an abuse of the DMCA, and even if this is a slightly odd case, it's certainly nice to see. You can read the full ruling after the jump.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Williams Sonoma Nastygrams Blogger Who Helps People Build Their Own Furniture

Mike Masnick — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:59:00 PST

Brad Hubbard writes "I regularly read a blog called "Knock Off Wood" -- a site where a woman teaches readers how to build various designer-looking pieces of furniture at home for a lot less. It's the best kind of "maker" site - someone who is passionate about crafting, freely sharing their passion with a community of readers and everyone learns a little something. So when Williams Sonoma, Inc (owner of Pottery Barn and West Elm among others) sent them a legal nastygram, the owner of the site was entertained more than anything."

The company is alleging both trademark and copyright violations -- though it's difficult to see either one holding up. Unfortunately the woman who runs the site decided it was easier to just cave in, but that's unfortunate. Doing so encourages more bullying. The trademark claims are ridiculous. They say that by mentioning specific product names, she's implying that "the website is somehow affiliated" with WSI. But, of course, any moron in a hurry knows that's not true. The whole site clearly states it's about making knock-off furniture. No one is going to go to this site and think it's actually affiliated with WSI, or any of the other brand name furniture companies.

The copyright claim is equally questionable. At issue is that she's using the copyrighted images of WSI's furniture as part of the blog posts about how to make that type of furniture. But that seems like it should be a clear cut case of fair use. If you run through the four factors of fair use, it's hard to see how this is infringement:

the purpose and character of your use

The question here is if the use is somehow transformative or being used to build something new. But one of the questions usually asked in judging this factor is: "Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?" It seems like an entire blog post around how to build that kind of furniture certainly qualifies. This one is in favor of fair use.
the nature of the copyrighted work

Well, they're photographs, but they were used in catalogs and such, not for sale. So that would seem to, again, lend to a fair use ruling. The original purpose of the photos was that they were to be seen widely.
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken

Indeed, it sounds like the "entire" photo was used, so you might be able to weigh this factor against fair use, but not necessarily. As we've seen in multiple lawsuits, even if you're using the entirety of the work, it can be considered fair use if the purpose is so completely different from the original -- which, in this case, is definitely true.
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Now, some might argue that the use here might harm the market for WSI furniture since it's teaching people how to build their own, but that shouldn't apply here. The test is for the potential market of the copyrighted work. That is, this factor should not take into account the impact on the market for the furniture itself, but just on the market for the photographs. And it's difficult to see any harm done here at all.

So going through all of that, it's difficult to see how this isn't a clear cut fair use case. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the woman didn't want to fight the legal battle and agreed to just take down the images and mentions of WSI. However, she is amused that a housewife in Alaska has brought out the legal attack dogs of a giant retailer.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:41:00 PDT

There are some legal decisions that just make no sense. Gunnar writes in to let us know of a story in Michigan, where a judge has ordered a furniture store to stop using a design that shows a couch being unwrapped from a candy bar. Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars: But here's the thing: even the judge admits that trademark law shouldn't apply here because it's a totally different business and there's little chance of customer confusion: "While both parties cater to the general public, there is no indication that their customers are predominantly the same. Even if their customer bases overlap to some extent ... the risk of consumers confusing a furniture outlet with a candy store, or vice versa, appears remote." Those are all things a judge says right before denying the trademark claim, but in this case, it went the other way. If a moron in a hurry isn't likely to be confused, then there's no trademark infringement. The furniture store wasn't even using the image yet -- but just had it in a contest for truck designs. At least the company hadn't spent too much money painting up all the trucks.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story