Swedish sandal scandal: Vagabond puts the boot in

"Micro"

From Catharina Bratt (Glimstedt Advokatfirman, Gothenburg) comes news of a design case that settled before it had the chance to ripen into maturity.  This is what she writes:

Here in Sweden we were very close to getting one of our first judgments on Community unregistered design protection. 

 Vagabond [for whom Glimstedt acted in this matter] is a company which designs and sells shoes. Today Vagabond distributes more than two million shoes in about 25 countries. Vagabond invests heavily into the design department and has a full workshop for prototypes, most likely the only one in Northern Europe. 

"Peperoni"

 In 2010 Vagabond initiated proceedings at Stockholm District Court against another Swedish company, LT Skor, claiming infringement of Vagabond’s unregistered design right to a gladiator sandal named “Micro” (illustrated, above right). Micro had become an immediate success and appeared in several magazines and blogs after it was launched in 2009. LT Skor’s shoe model “Peperoni” (illustrated, left) was put on the market in 2010. The defendant contested the validity of the right with a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity. 

"Macy"

One of the main issues in the proceeding was whether Vagabond’s shoe design Micro should be considered to be new and have individual character. The defendant claimed that Vagabond’s design was not new and did not produce an overall impression which differed from earlier shoe design, among others a design “Macy” by the company Miss Sixty (illustrated, right), which was put on the market before Vagabond’s design. The defendant also argued that the design of Vagabond’s model was dictated by its technical function. 

Further, the defendant claimed that it had not copied Vagabond’s design, but that its design was the result of a design arrived at independently with inspiration from, inter alia, Miss Sixty’s shoe. Even if Vagabond’s shoe model would be considered new and of individual character, it would (according to the defendant, of course) thus not be question of an infringement since copying is a prerequisite for infringement of an unregistered design right. 

 After settlement discussions on the first day of trial, LT Skor consented to the demand and agreed to pay compensation, following which the court gave judgment.  Thus the limits of the unregistered design right was not tested in this case and Sweden/the European Union was not enriched by another judgment on the unregistered design protection.

Thanks, Catharina -- we, and all our readers, all appreciate this.