top of page
Writer's pictureRosie Burbidge

When is an artwork an IP infringement?

toy soldiers

The English High Court has been asked to consider “culture jamming” in the context of Icelandic fishing. An action for trade mark infringement was brought by Icelandic fishing company Samherji against an artist, Oddur Eysteinn Friðriksson, who is better known as Odee.


The case has its origins in the 2019 “Fishrot” scandal in which it was alleged that Samherji had bribed officials in Namibia. The company denied the allegations but apologised for mistakes made. Following the scandal, the company's chief executive and two Namibian ministers resigned.


The controversial artwork

In 2023, Odee created and shared his artwork “We’re Sorry”. This was a fictional apology published using Samherji’s branding on a website samherji.co.uk. He also sent out a press release in Samherji’s name and displayed a mural with the same text.


Samherji managed to get the website taken down, but it has brought the case in the UK over the use of its logo and branding. Odee argues that the work was clearly identifiable as a parody.

On his website, Odee says: “This legal battle is not just about me; it’s about defending freedom of speech and the role of art in holding powerful entities accountable.”


In an interview with the Observer newspaper, he added: “Icelanders have been very critical of imperialist tactics throughout history. So to have this company drag the reputation of the country through the mud and put this huge stain on our history was just appalling.”


Odee is supported by more than 20 organisations including Index on Censorship, Transparency International Ireland, Artistic Freedom Initiative and Civil Liberties Union of Europe. They urged Samherji to drop its action, saying: “Ensuring that whistleblowers can disclose information about wrongdoing in the public interest is vital for democratic accountability – so that proper investigations can occur, and those responsible are held to account. Protecting whistleblowers safeguards the public’s right to know, an essential element of the right to freedom of expression.”


The artist has so far raised just over kr58,000 (£4,100) out of a target of kr150,000 (£10,500) to fund the litigation.


What does this mean?

The case was reportedly heard by Master Teverson, who is expected to give judgment in autumn 2024. The judgment is likely to address the tension between trade mark protection and freedom of speech in parody cases and should provide insights into how the UK courts address this issue.


In a similar case in the Netherlands in 2011, the Court of The Hague ruled in favour of artist Nadia Plesner in a case concerning her use of images of Louis Vuitton bags. That case concerned registered designs and Plesner's defence based on freedom of expression. I wrote about this case many years ago for a sister blog of IPKat, Art & Artifice.


Another interesting aspect of this case is the court location. The English court's jurisdiction is likely to be based on the fact that Odee used a .co.uk website for his artwork which targeted the UK. Samherji may also have considered that the experience of the UK courts and lawyers, and the costs of litigation in London, were in its favour.


We will report on the judgment once it is available.


To find out more about the issues raised in this blog contact Rosie Burbidge, Intellectual Property Partner at Gunnercooke LLP in London - rosie.burbidge@gunnercooke.com


Recent Posts

See All

Comentários


bottom of page