Skip to main content


A recent case in the Federal Court of Australia has backfired for a bag producer as the court ruled that there was not a single piece of artistic value or merit in their products.

In State of Escape Accessories Pty Limited v Schwartz [2020] FCA 1606, the claimant, State of Escape, claimed that Schwartz (and her company Chuchka) had infringed on their copyright works by producing a waterproof neoprene bag which was similar to a bag made by State of Escape. Mildly confident in their approach, State of Escape claimed that Schwartz had infringed their copyright on 34 different designs. 

State of Escape's Bags

Schwartz's Bags

According to section 31 of the Copyright Act 1968 (cth), copyright subsists in all artistic works, which is later defined as a work of artistic craftsmanship’. To determine whether State of Escape’s work was a work of artistic craftsmanship, Justice Davies, looked at the artistic elements to the bag and found them lacking. Using the factors outlined in Burge v Swarbrick [2007] HCA 17, Justice Davies found only the only artistic element to the bag was the use of perforated neoprene and that otherwise the Escape Bag design was “constrained by functional limitations”, that were “merely matters of visual and aesthetic appeal but also, critically, resolved functional issues”. In short, the only thing mildly artistic about the bag was the fabric they used, and every other element of the bag was required for the proper function of the bag. Justice Davies also did not take into consideration the intentions of the designer of the bag or other materials used in the construction of the bag. 

Therefore, if it isn’t artistic, then there is no copyright attached to it, and Schwartz is in the clear.

Justice Davies later remarked that if there were a chance that State of Escape could have established that the bag was an artistic work, Schwartz would have been in breach of copyright. Which probably felt about as good as hearing you came second in a two-person race.

What this case is indicative of is a change in the way that fashion companies are dealing with their intellectual property rights. Due to the time restraints (10 years), an ever-increasing amount of companies are attempting to claim intellectual property rights outside those afforded in the Designs Register. But just like trying to put the triangle block through the round hole, it isn’t always a great fit. Attempting to prove fashion articles like bags are “works of artistic craftsmanship” where functional considerations dictate the design will continue to a sore point for those trying to claim intellectual property rights over the bags. Further, any fashion works that use a ‘minimalistic’ design will also have an issue trying to prove artistic choices.

Improper registration of trademarks has also been proven to be an issue since the appearance of COVID-19; many brands attempted to register their trademarks under the newly created class of face masks. Several applications that should have been registered as designs were applied by brands trying to safeguard their trade marks; however, many of these should have been registered designs in the first place, which would not have been necessary.


Popular posts from this blog

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game

Misappropriation of likeness, it's in the game With the recent announcement that EA will be venturing back into the world of college sports for one of their upcoming games. It is essential to look at the reasons for its (over a decade-long) hiatus from making college sports games. Several high-profile cases took down a very profitable area of sports gaming almost ten years ago, over a simple but crucial element to the games, the players.  Privacy and personality laws in the United States is an emerging area of law founded on the basis that is based in tort law. It deals with the ideas that a person has rights: 1. To be left alone; 2. To not have public disclosure of private facts; 3. To not be depicted in a false light; and 4. To not have your name and likeness misappropriated.  On these critical tenets, personality laws have become increasingly more prevalent as, due to advances in technologies, it is becoming easier for one's likeness to be copied and distributed.  Th

NEVER Read the Comments!

The Federal Court this week delivered their judgement on  Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Service Seeking Pty Ltd  [2020] FCA 1040 going all out by handing out whopping fines, legal costs orders and ordering Service Seeking Pty Ltd to establish a, undoubtedly expensive, compliance system to be monitored by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).  What did they do that was so bad?  According to the Federal Court of Australia, they created a system in which businesses could write their own customer reviews.  With a rating system less defined than what constitutes a 5-star rating in an Uber trip, businesses could write a review, assign a star rating and send it off to their customer for approval. If the customer didn’t respond or even open the email containing the review, then the review was automatically published online after a set period. By estimates of the Court, approximately 80% of the reviews published on the website for the period that this sch

Well, It's About Time

Well, It's About Time How two massive New York news publishers ended up fighting over intellectual property. On 20 November 2020, two of the largest most influential media organisations on the planet locked horns over their rights to the thing which Gollum so eloquently put as, 'the thing that devours all things, or for those that are not as up to date on their  Lord of the Rings  trivia, 'Time'.  As fancy bathrooms are no longer exclusively stacked with copies of the magazine, earlier this year, Time magazine diversified their offering. It unveiled a new short-form online interview series called 'TIME100 Talks' which featured online interviews with journalists, talents and thought leaders. As the videos became popular, Time magazine began to branch out with this brand, establishing Time Talks for dedicated topics like health. Accordingly, they applied to have the trademark 'TIME100 Talks' registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (