Zara Home
Convicted for Plagiarism – Decision of Brussels Court in case Damiaens - Odink
vs. Zara Home
Zara Home
Candle | Damiaens - Odink vs. Zara Home
To Whom it
May Concern:
Zara Home
Convicted for Plagiarism – Decision of Brussels Court in case Damiaens - Odink
vs. Zara Home
The purpose
of this press release/statement is to allow my clients to manage, streamline
and react to the numerous requests for interviews that have come their way
following the decision of the Brussels Court in the matter of Damiaens - Odink
vs. Zara Home.
The decision is attached to this e-mail, and
summarized below. This statement also includes a couple of quotes from the
decision, and subsequent remarks from the claimants and their lawyer. We
politely ask you to direct any further questions you may have to Dieter Delarue
via dieter@vaninnis-delarue.be. Thank you.
Summary of the decision – quote:
The Brussels Court held that, while that is
not the case for the original family coat of arms, the adaptation (wood carved
sculpture) made of it by mr Patrick Damiaens is an original work of art and
thus protected by copyright. The Brussels Court further held that by
reproducing the sculpture onto a carved candle sold online and in Zara Home
stores, without the artist’s permission, Zara Home infringed this copyright.
The Brussels Court ordered Zara Home to stop
selling the candles (Zara Home had already pulled back the applicable candles),
and convicted Zara Home to pay damages and legal costs, and to publish the
decision in the “Heraldisch Tijdschrift”, a periodical focused on heraldic art.
Reflecting on Zara's typical modus operandi,
the Brussels Court stated the following: "this clearly illustrates the intentions
and attitude of Zara Home when designing and producing the candle: a
commercially interesting and existing design, of not too much renown, is
reproduced on the applicable goods in order to optimize sales without any
recognition of the person who actually created the work and whose personality
the work reflects."
Statement
by Dieter Delarue
(lawyer for Patrick Damiaens and Mervyn Odink)
“As a copyright lawyer and a true advocate for
the protection of innovation and creativity, it has always struck me that, no
matter how strong and noisy the media campaigns against these practices were,
in the end they faded away and the retailers went on and copied further.
The
retailers have always assumed that smaller designers or artist would be bluffed
away, or would not persist in enforcing their rights. I hope that this
decision, probably the first of its kind, even worldwide, can serve as a
turning point in that respect, and that it may give courage to other designers
or artists that are in the same boat.
Statement by Patrick Damiaens (claimant 1):
“I am very happy with the result. Two long
years of persistence finally paid off. Zara Home found images of my sculpture
online (probably on my blog), copied my work on one of its products and sold
the product all over the world, without asking my permission.
And then, when
asked for an explanation two years ago, they simply waived the expression of my
concern and feeling of disrespect away. They even threatened with a law suit
for slander. I felt insulted and was too stubborn to let things go just like
that.“
Statement
by Mervyn Odink (claimant 2):
“To a
certain extent I am happy with the end result: that Zara Home did not get away
with what it did and that it has to realize that respect for third parties’ intellectual
property rights is something that they need to show, too, no matter how big
they are.
I am disappointed, however, to the extent that the court has held
that the original family coat or arms is not protected by copyright, because
the creation of a work like this is in part the result of pre-defined choices
or the combination of existing elements. We do not agree with this point
of view”.
