Street artist Banksy has lost a legal battle with a greeting card company along with a European Union trademark for one of his most famous works.
The cancellation division of the EU’s intellectual property office said in a ruling this week that Banksy’s trademark for Flower Thrower was filed in bad faith and declared it “invalid in its entirety”.
Also known as Love Is In The Air, the graffiti artist created the work in Jerusalem in 2005.
It depicts a young protester wearing a cap and with his face half-covered throwing a bouquet of flowers.
The decision, which can be appealed, followed a dispute between UK greeting card company Full Colour Black Ltd and the company that authenticates and handles requests dealing with Banksy’s work, Pest Control Office Ltd.
Full Colour Black, which sells products printed with images of his pieces, claimed the 2014 trademark for Flower Thrower should be cancelled because Banksy had not made use of it.
The company argued he only applied for it to prevent “the ongoing use of the work which he had already permitted to be reproduced”.
The greeting card company also noted Banksy wrote in one of his books that “copyright is for losers”.
After Full Colour Black started legal proceedings, Banksy opened an online store called Gross Domestic Product to sell his own range of merchandise.
But the move left the EU examiners unconvinced.
They wrote in their decision: “It was only during the course of the present proceedings that Banksy started to sell goods but specifically stated that they were only being sold to overcome non-use for trademark proceedings and not to commercialise the goods.”
Citing Banksy’s stated contempt for intellectual property rights, the examiners also made clear the artist’s choice to keep his identity secret hurt him in the Flower Thrower case.
They wrote: “It must be pointed out that another factor worthy of consideration is that he cannot be identified as the unquestionable owner of such works as his identity is hidden.
“It further cannot be established without question that the artist holds any copyrights to a graffiti.
“The contested (trademark) was filed in order for Banksy to have legal rights over the sign as he could not rely on copyright rights but that is not a function of a trademark.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here