Between 2016 and 2020, Comforta marketed several slipper designs. When Shoes4All entered the market with similar slippers, Comforta sued for copyright infringement, though its slippers were not sold in the Netherlands, only in Germany and beyond. The court rejected Comforta’s claim since copyright ownership in those other countries was not sufficiently established. Additionally, Comforta claimed slavish imitation; Shoes4All countered that many suppliers offered similar slippers, so Comforta’s designs lacked the necessary individual character. Once again, the court ruled for Shoes4All: imitation was permissible. Had Comforta sought EU design registration, it might have had a stronger case and a better chance of exclusive rights. The key takeaway: carefully assess which intellectual property right best fits your product and target markets to ensure enforceable protection.
