sutton044

If someone takes part in a photo shoot for the promotion of a clothing line, they consented to his or her image being used online as part of the designers’ advertising campaign – surely ?  Similarly, if you blur somebody’s face in a film so much so that he or she is no longer recognizable, you have dispensed with your obligation to respect their right to their image  –   surely ?  Well, don’t be so sure  –  the Paris Tribunal would reject both assumptions, according to recent judgments on image rights.  In two decisions, dated 16 November 2018 and 21 November 2018 , respectively, the Paris Tribunal (‘Tribunal de Grande Instance’) clarified the application of image rights in the context of commercial advertising, opting for an interpretation of the law favourable to models and performers. The contribution of the Tribunal’s recent jurisprudence declared that: Taking part in a photo shoot for advertising purposes does not imply consenting to all forms of...

Beyoncé's Drunk in Love Would you think that products carrying the word FEYONCÉ are sponsored by or affiliated with famous singer Beyoncé, or blur the distinctiveness of her mark?  This is the question at the centr e of Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, et al., v.  Feyoncé, Inc. et al. ,  16-CV-2532 (AJN) . The facts The defendants started selling merchandise using the brand name FEYONCÉ, as well as some phrases from Beyoncé's songs. Their products were targeted at the engaged to be married ... that is fiancés. The items were sold through the website feyonceshop.com, as well as etsy.com. The defendants had even tried to obtain US trade mark registrations, but the USPTO refused them on grounds of confusing similarities with the registered BEYONCÉ trade mark. Beyoncé and the entity that owns (lots of) her registered trade marks, BGK Trademark Holdings, brought proceedings against them for:  Federal Trademark Infringement, ex 15 U.S.C. § 1114 ;  Federal Unfair Compet...