The preferred diction of my tortured friend Currado Malaspina is rage and indignation. It matters little whether he is trying to talk his way out of a parking ticket, complaining to the maitre d'hotel about a tepid bisque or delivering an impassioned jeremiad in front of a lecture hall of artworld malcontents, Currado is always inflamed.
Those of us who know him never take his tone too seriously so when he started off a few months ago about some vague and seemingly harmless copyright infringement we all shrugged it off as just another one of his fugitive tantrum.
It was only later did we learn of XinQin Enterprises in Shanghai and how it brazenly appropriated one of Currado's signature images to promote its new line of inexpensive fragrences.
Acrobat, the line in question, is manufactured in Malaysia, distributed through Hong Kong and can be found in department stores from Delhi to Dubai. The image is fairly dim and I suppose they thought no one would notice. But Currado has a nose for grievances especially when it comes to eau de toilette.
When he took them to court they successfully claimed that it was within the bounds of utilisation correcte. Currado tried to introduce the original drawing as evidence but it was ruled inadmissible because of it's "objectionable content."
Meanwhile XinQin got a boatload of free publicity while Currado was dragged into the litigious world of jurisprudential dog shit.
Nobody came out smelling very good.
It was only later did we learn of XinQin Enterprises in Shanghai and how it brazenly appropriated one of Currado's signature images to promote its new line of inexpensive fragrences.
Acrobat, the line in question, is manufactured in Malaysia, distributed through Hong Kong and can be found in department stores from Delhi to Dubai. The image is fairly dim and I suppose they thought no one would notice. But Currado has a nose for grievances especially when it comes to eau de toilette.
When he took them to court they successfully claimed that it was within the bounds of utilisation correcte. Currado tried to introduce the original drawing as evidence but it was ruled inadmissible because of it's "objectionable content."
Meanwhile XinQin got a boatload of free publicity while Currado was dragged into the litigious world of jurisprudential dog shit.
Nobody came out smelling very good.
No comments:
Post a Comment