Si vedano le seguent immagini:
Il titolare della prima creazione ha agito sia in base a diritto di autore che di diritto di marchio contro il titolare della seconda (anzi la terza, essendo la secodna solo la rappresetnazione geografica dello stato del Michigan)
la Corte distrettuale del Michigan però ha rigettato ogni domanda (6 maggio 2021, Case No. 1:20–cv–604, High Five Threads c. Michigan Farm Boureau).
Il preteso disegno contraffattore << contain a basic line drawing of two hands. High Five does not possesscopyright protection overasimple outlineof a human hand. There is nothing original in such a drawing; it is the most basic representation of something from nature, familiar to every child who has ever traced herown hand. Does the juxtaposition of two such drawings at a right angle, as in the Hand Map, result in copyright–protectible expression? If it does, the protectionfor that expression is “thin”at best,“comprising no more than...original contribution to ideas already in the public domain.” Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 2003).Two close–fingered hands arranged perpendicular to one another as arepresentation of Michigan is simply a generic expression of the “popular idea of using ones’ hands to indicate the shape of Michigan.” (See Pl.’s Resp.24, ECF No. 17.)High Five did not invent this idea (see id.at 25) and copyright does not protectit. At most, copyright protects original contributions to, or expressions of, that idea.
To be sure, High Five’s Hand Map is not devoid of protected expression. For instance, the folded pinkyand overlapping index finger are arguably protected elements. But those elementsarenot presentin MFB’s design; thus,MFB did not copy them>>, p. 7
Segue poi analisi della domanda di violazione di marchio.
Il giudizio di confonbilitòà va dato in base ai seguenti fattori (che sarebbe interssante paragonare a quelli italiani o europei): <<(1) strength of the senior mark; (2) relatedness of the goods or services; (3)similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) the intent of defendant in selecting the mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines.>> p. 9
Come detto, viene rigettata anche tale domanda: <<In summary, the complaint contains very few facts from which to reasonablyinfer a likelihood of customer confusion. Indeed, the facts allegedindicate that such confusion is very unlikely.Only the distinctiveness of High Five’s marksweighs in its favor. But that distinctiveness cannot overcome the dissimilaritiesbetween its marksand the designsused by MFB, as well as the dissimilaritiesbetweenthe parties’ goods and services. Thus, High Five falls far short of stating a plausible claim under the Lanham Act>> p. 13.
Altro tema interessante è quello del rapporto tra le due tutele sulla medesima creazione: necessità di ponderato coordinamento dogmatico o non ci sono attriti?