or organized and coordinated components to create a functional and harmonic ambience, manifesting the personal touch of the author.82 In the opposite sense, in the Ilse Jacobsen Case, the Supreme Court of Denmark (IJH) decided, in 10.06.2020, that the RUB1 boots created by the stylist could not be a copyright protected work, though they created visual significative aesthetical effect. The design of the boots brought together elements of the traditional leader boots with long boot laces and rubber elements. Unlawful competition was also denied.83 In the Krakatau Parka Case, a Court of Appeal in the Netherlands considered the design of a parka of two pieces, an internal part and an external part, that protected by copyright according to the Cofemel criteria, because it is the result of creative choices and is clearly recognizable as a creation of the author. The decision led to the opposite consequences of what occurred in the Cofemel Case.84 The Supreme Court of Spain, in the ruling of 16.02.2021, Laureano Case, denied copyright protection to a bullfighting fight, referring to Levola Engelo and Cofemel Cases, because the subject matter could not be identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity, that is, we were not before a “work”.85 6.3. Does the EU design harmonization change the present uncertainty EU situation? The EU regulation of design, and the harmonization of design has been a huge success. Nevertheless, the technical evolution demanded a revision of the Regulation 6/2002 and of Directive 98/71/CE. The revision aims to adapt design protection for the digital environment and 3D printing, simplify the EU 82 Proc. 17223/2018, Wycon, S.p.a. v. Kiko S.p.a..About this case, read “Caso KikoWycon:la tutela del concept store tra diritto d’autore e concorrenza sleale”, Italy Intellectual Property Blog (ipinitalia.com), last access on 30 September 2024; ROSATI, Eleonora,“Italian Supreme Court applies CJEU Cofemel decision to make up store layout”, JIPLP, Vol. 15,7,2020, p. 501; The Bird and Bird Team, JIPLP, Vol. 16, 6, June 2021, pp. 595-625; SILVA, P. SOUSA e, “Tutela Jusautoral…”cit., pp.185-185; ROCHA, “Proteção autoral…” RRDDIS cit., pp. 105.106. 83 Decision of the Supreme Court of Denmark of 10 June 2020, Case Nº BS-7741/2019-H-JR A/S v. Morso Sko Import A/S Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright nº 1144 of October 2014, Sec 1 (1), last access on 30 September 2024; About this case, read KIANZAD, BEHRANG, “Did the Danish Supreme Court Give the Fashion Industry a Kantian Boot? GRUR International, 70, 2, 2021, pp. 159-163; The Bird and Bird IP Team, JIPLP, Vol. 16, 6, June 2021, pp. 595-625; SILVA, P. SOUSA e, “Tutela Jusautoral…”, cit., p.186; ROCHA, “Proteção Autoral…” RRDDIS cit., pp. 106-107. 84 Decision of the Court of Appeal of Anhem-Leewarden, Proc. 2020:4773, The Sting v. Krakatau. Sobre o caso, leia-se SILVA, P. SOUSA e, “Tutela Jusautoral…”, cit., p.186; ROCHA, “Proteção Autoral…” RRDDIS cit., pp. 107-108. 85 Proc. 82/2021, Laureano v. Registrador Territorial de la Propiedad Intellectual de Extremadura. About this case, read ALTABA, M. S., “Is bullfight a work of art? Not in Spain, apparently”, IIC, 52, 2021, pp. 807-819; SILVA, P. SOUSA e, “Tutela Justautoral…”, cit., p 186; ROCHA, “Proteção Autoral…” RRDDIS cit., p.108. 251 HOW TO PROTECT FOOD PRESENTATION BY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==