PARODIJA U PRAVU INTELEKTUALNE SVOJINE, U KONTEKSTU MODNOG PRAVA
Sažetak
Ovaj članak bavi se odnosom izmeđe parodije i prava intelektualne svojine. Autorka najpre predstavlja koncept i osnovne karakteristike parodije u evropskom pravu intelektualne svojine, sa posebnim osvrtom na upotrebu parodije u oblasti autorskog prava (copyright) i prava na zaštitu znaka/žiga (trademark). U tom kontekstu, detaljno je analizirana prva presuda Suda pravde Evropske unije (CJEU) koja se bavi ovom materijom u predmetu C‑201/13 Deckmyn protiv Vandersteen. Pored razmatranja parodije u okviru autorskog prava i zaštite žigova, autorka predstavlja i nekoliko slučajeva iz oblasti modnog prava. S obzirom da sudska praksa Suda pravde EU ne sadrži presude iz oblasti modnog prava, autorka je istraživala sudsku praksu sudova u Sjedinjenim američkim državama. Većina slučajeva iz oblasti modnog prava obično se okončava sklapanjem strogo poverljivih sporazuma i vansudskom nagodbom. Manji broj slučajeva koji su bili predmet rasprave u nacionalnim sudskim postupcima ilustruju kako se parodija koristi u svetu mode.
Reference
Decision
• Judgment Court of the Hague dated 4 May 2011. NADIA PLESNER JOENSEN, claimant, v. LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER SA, case number 389526/KG ZA 11-294 [online]. [cit. 5. 5. 19]. Available on: http://www.nadiaplesner.com/upl/website/simple-living--darfurnica1/VerdictEnglish.pdf
• Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 3 September 2014, Deckmyn v. Vandersteen. In Case C‑201/13. Available from: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=368150D79784A375E1812AB0900AE8A9?text=&docid=157281&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9417447#Footnote*
• Opinion of Advocate General delivered on 22 May 2014. Case C‑201/13. Available from: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152656&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9420552
• Registered Community Design number 000084223-0001. EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office. © EUIPO 1995-2019. [cit. 28. 8. 19]. Available from: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/000084223-0001
• United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit dated 22 December 2016. LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MY OTHER BAG, INC., Defendant-Appellee, case number 16-241-cv [online]. [cit. 28. 8. 19]. Available on: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1762991.html
• United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dated 2007. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, case number 507 F.3d 252 [online]. [cit. 5. 5. 19]. Available on: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/louisvuitton.pdf
Legal framework
• Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1566678022911&uri=CELEX%3A32001L0029
• Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1567024746509&uri=CELEX:32017R1001
Articles
• Šilhánková, Šárka. Louis Vuitton As A Bully Brand. In: European Legal Studies and Research. International Conference of PhD Students In Law. Timisoara: Faculty of West University of Timisoara, 2019, s. 372-377. ISSN 2066-6403.
• Chanel Settled its Lawsuit Over „Parody“ Tee, Diesl to Sue? THE FASHION LAW [online]. TFL LLC, © 2012-2019 [cit. 28. 8. 19]. Available from: http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/chanel-settled-its-lawsuit-over-parody-tee-diesel-to-sue
• Hermes v. Thursday Friday. THE FASHION LAW [online]. TFL LLC, © 2012-2019 [cit. 28. 8. 19]. Available from: http://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/hermes-v-thursday-friday