
Banksy launches homewares shop in dispute over trademark - mlthoughts2018
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/oct/01/banksy-launches-homewares-shop-in-dispute-over-trademark
======
bjterry
I find the Banksy identity situation pretty interesting. His identity has been
basically known since 2008, but despite that revelation, few articles on
Banksy actually acknowledge this fact and state it in clear terms.

In 2008 DailyMail did a report that provided highly convincing evidence that
Banksy is Robin Gunningham [1]. Since then several other pieces of evidence
have come out pointing to Robin Gunningham [2][3]. But for some reason in the
press they like to latch onto much weaker evidence for other candidates, like
Robert Del Naja, to try to "teach the controversy" as it were. Journalists
apparently have difficulty comparing multiple layers of evidence coming from
different angles with unsubstantiated statements, which I think is kind of
sad. I'm pretty sure that it's really that journalists like to just keep the
dream alive, even though they know it's kind of silly. I guess it turns out if
people are sympathetic to you keeping your identity secret, all you have to do
is deny it no matter what and they will just always report your identity as
being in dispute.

On the other hand, Wikipedia's treatment of the subject is good, which is
something [4].

1:
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034538/Graffiti-
artist-Banksy-unmasked---public-schoolboy-middle-class-suburbia.html)

2: [https://news.artnet.com/art-world/early-banksy-
auction-13291...](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/early-banksy-
auction-1329194)

3: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/banksy-
geographic-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/banksy-geographic-
profiling-proves-artist-really-is-robin-gunningham-according-to-
scientists-a6909896.html)

4:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy#Personal_life_and_dispu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy#Personal_life_and_disputed_identity)

------
em-bee
can someone please explain the trademark law that forces banksy to do this?

i know that not defending/protecting a trademark can cause you to loose it.

i also understand that trademarks are limited to categories, which is why we
can have "LINUX" washing powder. but that washing powder is not pretending to
sell Linux Software.

whereas this banksy merchandise is in my understanding rather clearly
pretending to be banksy artwork.

how is that not obviously infringing on his trademark?

why would banksy be forced to sell his own merchandise to protect his
trademark?

i thought the point of a trademark was that it must not be confusing.

LINUX washing powder is not confusing. banksy merchandise is. or am i missing
something?

~~~
maccam912
I am not a lawyer first of all but this is my understanding: If you buy a
greeting card with Banksy art on it do you think you are getting an official
licensed print? The greeting card company here says no, you aren't confused,
because Banksy doesn't sell official merch. By selling official stuff he is
fighting back saying he certainly is selling official stuff (now) and the card
company selling cards with his art can be confused for something he endorses.

~~~
em-bee
so if disney didn't sell merchandise using their characters, i could do so
myself without impunity? i find that hard to believe.

if i buy a banksy greeting card then i most definitely assume that it is
licensed because i would not consider that they'd be allowed to do so without
licensing.

if that is the issue though, wouldn't it be enough for banksy to put a price
on the license?

you want to sell banksy greeting cards, you need to get a license from banksy.
he just needs to put the price high enough to make it worth his while, and/or
to make it unprofitable for the would-be licensee.

~~~
pixelbath
At least in the US, trademark law is _use it or lose it_. If you are not
selling products bearing your trademark, you are not actually engaging in
"trade" with your "mark."

Copyright law is automatic, but it does complicate things if the original
author of a copyrighted work is unknown or difficult to contact. For
licensing, you need a name and address of an entity to license _from_. The
whole idea behind Banksy's art is that he's anonymous, so precludes the idea
of licensing his work.

> you want to sell banksy greeting cards, you need to get a license from
> banksy

That is exactly the sort of thing opening a store with tangible goods will
allow.

~~~
em-bee
the store allows me to sell my own products. i should not need a store to sell
you a license to use my trademark.

banksy is using his mark, and so is disney. i am making the difference between
disney movies and disney merchandise. how would disney merchandise not
infringe on disney movies if they are created by independent companies without
permission?

