Banksy loses art trademark battle with greeting card company in ‘devastating’ ruling
Judges ruled that mysterious artist’s intent on anonymity did not help his case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Banksy has lost a legal battle over one of his most famous artworks, with a trademark attorney calling the decision “devastating” for the artist.
The artwork, which depicts a masked protester throwing a bouquet of flowers, appeared on a wall in Jerusalem in 2005. It has since been reappropriated by the UK card company Full Colour Black, which has used the artwork on cards.
In 2014, Banksy successfully applied for an EU trademark for the work, which was then challenged by Full Colour Black. The company argued that the artist was not entitled to the trademark as he did not wish to use it for trade purposes or for branding.
As a result of the challenge, Banksy opened up his own shop in October 2019 which featured versions of his artwork for sale. In an interview, the artist admitted that the shop was opened “for the sole purpose of fulfilling trademark categories”.
Judges at the European Union Intellectual Property Office have now ruled in favour of Full Colour Black. They argued that Banksy’s decision to graffiti public property and his previous expressions of disinterest in maintaining the copyright to his own work were both factors in the ruling.
Banksy has long expressed disdain for intellectual property, famously claiming “copyright is for losers”.
Judges also argued that it was difficult for Banksy to exert copyright laws while remaining anonymous, with the artist famously keeping his true identity a secret.
Full Colour Black’s trademark attorney, Aaron Wood of law firm Blaser Mills, said that the ruling was “devastating” for Banksy.
“He will need to consider whether any of his trademarks for his artworks are actually valid,” Wood said.
Earlier this month, Art Attack star Neil Buchanan was forced to deny that he is in fact Banksy, following a viral Twitter thread suggesting he may secretly be the mysterious artist.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments