Banksy loses battle over trademark
As the multimillionaire anarchic guerrilla graffiti artist Banksy once took great pleasure in declaring ‘‘copyright is for losers’’.
But now the anonymous street artist has been stripped of a trademark for his most famous artwork, the Flower Thrower, because he failed to reveal his identity to judges and was found to have acted in ‘‘bad faith’’ during his legal battle with a UK greetings card company.
The ruling could see the Bristol artist’s other applications to legally protect his creations challenged in the UK, Europe and the United States.
In a scathing judgment following a two-year fight with card-makers Full Colour Black, three judges said Banksy had made the graffiti which he secretly daubed on other people’s property freely available and repeatedly insisted he did not want to use it on merchandise.
The panel, part of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, said: ‘‘Banksy has chosen to remain anonymous and, for the most part, to paint graffiti on other people’s property without their permission rather than to paint it on canvases or his own property.
He has also chosen to be very vocal regarding his disdain for intellectual property rights . . . .
‘‘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 graffiti.’’
In 2014, Banksy, represented by Pest Control Office Ltd, successfully applied
for an EU trademark for the Flower Thrower nine years after it first appeared on a wall in Jerusalem.
The work also featured on the cover of his 2006 book, Wall and Piece, in which he mocked copyright. He then invited people to download his works for ‘‘amusement and activism’’ but not for profit, insisting he would never merchandise his works through cards, mugs or T-shirts. Many other companies have photographed his art on display in public and then reproduced it on posters and in books.
Full Colour Black, which specialises in ‘‘the commercialisation of street art’’, challenged his EU-wide trademark claiming the artist was not entitled to it because he created artwork and not a brand.
In October last year, Banksy suddenly opened a pop-up shop in Croydon, south London, displaying his works and
offering it for sale online.
It came about after a lawyer apparently advised the artist to sell his own range of merchandise to avoid his trademark being used by someone else under EU law.
In an interview, Banksy said the shop was created ‘‘for the sole purpose of fulfilling trademark categories’’ as part of his dispute.
The judges heard evidence suggesting Banksy had used the copyright of others, as well as declared ‘‘any advert in public space . . . is yours to take, rearrange and re-use’’.
Although the judges were only considering Banksy’s trademark, they noted that if he ever applied to exert rights over his graffiti using copyright laws, ‘‘it would be quite difficult’’ to do so while he remained anonymous and relied only on a company to represent him in court.