Hermes v Hermes: Turkey bookshop marks win in copyright fight

Hermes v Hermes: Turkey bookshop marks win in copyright fight

Turkish bookseller Umit Nar has won a David v Goliath case to use the name Hermes against a French luxury giant
Turkish bookseller Umit Nar has won a David v Goliath case to use the name Hermes against a French luxury giant. Photo: MERT CAKIR / AFP
Source: AFP

A bookseller in Turkey notched a victory over a French luxury house in a copyright battle to be able to call itself Hermes, the shop's lawyer said Tuesday, hailing an infrequent win against a major brand.

An Ankara court ruling partially voided a decision by TurkPatent, Turkey's intellectual property authority, that prevented any brand other than Hermes Paris from using the name Hermes.

"Hermes is a god in Greek mythology who belongs to the cultural heritage of humanity. He should not be owned by a company. This is an important decision in that sense," the bookseller Umit Nar, whose shop is in the western city of Izmir, told AFP.

The shopkeeper pointed out that the deity is closely linked to the ancient history of Smyrna -- Izmir's old name -- on the Aegaen coast, where many Greek myths are set.

Read also

UK judge asks prosecutors to consider charges in bitcoin inventor case

Hermes fashion house did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The court has not yet made its reasoning public, said the bookseller's lawyer, Hilmi Gullu, who added that the ruling was a "victory."

"Multinational firms like Hermes have an aggressive trademark registration policy, beyond their own industries. This verdict paves the way for saying no to these practices," Gullu said.

The case stretches back to December 2021, when the Turkish retailer sought to register a trademark for his 15-year-old bookshop.

A representative for the French company initiated legal proceedings against TurkPatent and took the case to court to ban the retailer from using "Hermes" in its brand name and any marketing materials.

Hermes fashion house emphasised the "similarity and risk of confusion" between the two names despite the different business sectors, arguing it is also active in publishing through its magazine.

Read also

Division trumps unity in US election rhetoric

"They would've been right if our sectors were similar, but that's absolutely not the case," said Nar.

The book dealer will still appeal the decision, as "the court has not ruled on the risk of confusion between the two brands in terms of audience and general impression," the lawyer said.

"I hope that this verdict will help set a precedent for cultural heritage and multinational firms," Nar said.

Source: AFP

Authors:
AFP avatar

AFP AFP text, photo, graphic, audio or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. AFP news material may not be stored in whole or in part in a computer or otherwise except for personal and non-commercial use. AFP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any AFP news material or in transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages whatsoever. As a newswire service, AFP does not obtain releases from subjects, individuals, groups or entities contained in its photographs, videos, graphics or quoted in its texts. Further, no clearance is obtained from the owners of any trademarks or copyrighted materials whose marks and materials are included in AFP material. Therefore you will be solely responsible for obtaining any and all necessary releases from whatever individuals and/or entities necessary for any uses of AFP material.