 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
| HOME | |
ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER
The Abelman Firm Intellectual Property Report
Volume 4, Issue 1
Topics
Calendar (See Below)
News
Trademarks and Unfair Competition
- Comoros: Accession to Paris Convention
- European Union: Parallel Imports and Exhaustion of Trademark Rights
- United States: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board System Online
Copyright
Domain Names and Other Internet Matters
- India: Opens Domain Name Spaces
- Macedonia: Domain Registry Opens
- Puerto Rico: Introduces Four New Extensions
Patents
Patent and Trademark History
- United States: Proposed Federal Rules On Electronic Discovery
- United States: The Supreme Court Strengthens The "Fair Use" Trademark Defense
Discussions
Patent and Trademark History
Announcements
The Firm joins in the mourning of the relatives and friends of the passing of Robert E. Lee, Jr., Esq. on January 25, 2005. Bob was intellectual property counsel for Atlantic Richfield Company for 35 years and Of Counsel to the Firm at the time of his death. Bob will be missed.
Marie Anne Mastrovito and Anthony A. Coppola, Partners, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
|
|
| February 3 - 4 | ITMA International Intellectual Property Forum; Quebec, Canada |
| February 7 - 8 | INTA Anticounterfeiting Forum; Washington, D.C. |
| February 9 - 11 | LES 2005 Winter Meeting; Denver, CO |
| February 14 - 25 | INTA Brand Protection, Branding Guidelines, Co-Branding, Using the Brand Correctly Roundtable; Various U.S. cities. |
| February 18 | FCBA Horizons Seminar Services: Perspectives on Patent Law and Innovation; Berkeley, CA |
| February 18 | AIPLA Town Meetings on Patent Reform; San Jose, CA |
| February 24 - 25 | PLI Patent Litigation at the ITC: Fast Track IP Enforcement; New York, NY |
| February 24 - 25 | PLI Navigating Trademark Practice Before the PTO 2005, From filing through TTAB Hearing; New York, NY |
| March 3-4 | INTA with IPOS Asia Pacific Forum: Emerging Issues in Brand Protection; Singapore |
| March 4 | AIPLA Town Meetings on Patent Reform; Chicago, IL |
| March 6 - 8 | Helsinki Symposium The Helsinki Symposium - The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights; Helsinki, Finland |
| March 7 - 8 | PLI Advanced Licensing Agreements 2005; New York, NY |
| March 8 - 10 | INTA Due Diligence Workshops; Chicago, IL; St. Louis, MO; Dallas, TX; Palo Alto, CA; Richmond, VA; New York, NY; Phoenix, AZ; Atlanta, GA |
| March 10 - 11 | PLI 25th Annual Institute on Computer & Internet Law; New York, NY |
| March 14 | IPO IPO Spring Meeting; Washington, D.C. |
| March 14 - 15 | PLI Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005; New York, NY |
| March 17 - 18 | PLI Advanced Licensing Agreements 2005; San Francisco, CA |
| March 18 | AIPLA Town Meetings on Patent Reform; Boston, MA |
| March 18 | NYIPLA 83rd Annual Dinner in Honor of the Federal Judiciary; New York, NY |
| March 21 - 22 | PLI 25th Annual Institute on Computer & Internet Law; San Francisco, CA |
| March 21 - 24 | LES Intermediate Intellectual Asset Management; San Francisco, CA |
| March 30 - April 1 | PLI Counseling Clients in the Entertainment Industry 2005; TV, The Computer and Video Game Industry; Ethics and the Development of an Entertainment Law Practice; Film, Theater; Music Publishing, Sound Recordings (Combo Program) (may also be taken in segments); New York, NY |
| April 4 - 8 | ICANN Annual Meeting, Mar del Plata, Argentina |
| April 6 - 8 | ITMA London International Meeting, London, UK. |
| April 13 - 15 | AIPLA Legal Secretaries and Administrators Conference; Alexandria, VA. |
| April 21 - 22 | PLI Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005; Chicago, IL |
| April 25 | IPO IPO Venture Summit; Silicon Valley, CA. |
| April 25 - 26 | WIPO Conference on Dispute Resolution on International Science and Technology Collaboration; Geneva, Switzerland |
| April 25 - 26 | WIPO Preparatory Meeting for the Diplomatic conference for the Adoption of a Revised Trademark Law Treaty; Geneva, Switzerland |
| April 29 - May 5 | FICPI FICPI EXCO Meeting, Seoul, South Korea |
| May 2 - 3 | PLI Handling Intellectual Property Issues in Business Transactions 2005; San Francisco, CA |
| May 4 - 6 | LES Spring Meeting; Raleigh, NC |
| May 11 - 13 | AIPLA Spring Meeting; Philadelphia, PA |
| May 14 - 18 | INTA Annual Meeting; San Diego, CA |
| May 23 - 24 | PLI Advanced Seminar on Copyright Law 2005; New York, NY |
| June 1 | PLI Patents & High Technology Licensing 2005; New York, NY |
| June 2 - 3 | LES Technology Transfer Seminar; Toronto, Canada |
| June 8 - 11 | ECTA: 24TH Annual Conference; London, Great Britain. |
| June 12 - 15 | LES International - LES International Conference; Munich, Germany. |
| June 9 | AIPLA Town Meetings on Patent Reform; Washington, D.C. |
| June 9 - 10 | AIPLA Advanced Patent Litigation Seminar; San Francisco, CA |
| June 9 - 10 | AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar; San Francisco, CA |
| June 10 - 16 | LES LESI Conference; Munich, Germany |
| June 12 - 15 | LES International - LES International Conference; Munich, Germany |
| June 15 - 17 | AIPLA/USPTO Legal Secretaries and Administrators Conference; Alexandria, VA |
| June 16 - 17 | AIPLA Advanced Patent Litigation Seminar; Chicago, IL |
| June 16 - 17 | AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar; Chicago, IL |
| June 22 - 24 | PLI Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2005: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting and Amendment Writing; New York, NY |
| June 23 - 24 | AIPLA Advanced Patent Litigation Seminar; New York, NY |
| June 23 - 24 | AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar; New York, NY |
| June 27 - 28 | PLI Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2005; Claim Drafting and Amendment Writing; San Francisco, CA |
| June 27 - 28 | WIPO Workshop for Mediators in IP Disputes; Geneva, Switzerland |
| June 29 | PLI Patents & High Technology Licensing 2005; San Francisco, CA |
| June 30 | PLI Advanced Seminar on Trademark Law; New York, NY |
| June 30 - July 1 | WIPO Advanced Workshop for Mediators in IP Disputes; Geneva, Switzerland |
| July 5 | ITMA Summer Reception; London, England |
| July 11 - 15 | ICANN Meeting; Luxembourg City, Luxembourg |
| July 17 - 23 | LES PDS Fundamentals and PDS Intermediate; Chicago, IL |
| July 18 - 19 | AIPLA Advanced PCT Seminar; Washington, D.C. |
| July 21 - 23 | AIPLA Advanced PCT Seminar; Minneapolis, MN |
| July 25 - 26 | AIPLA Advanced PCT Seminar; San Diego, CA |
| August 4 - 10 | ABA -Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL |
| August 10 - 12 | AIPLA Practical Patent Prosecution Training for New Lawyers Seminar; Alexandria, VA |
| September 11 - 13 | IPO - IPO Annual Meeting; Seattle, WA |
| September 13 - 16 | MARQUES - MARQUES Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic. |
| September 22 - 23 | PLI Patent Litigation 2005; Atlanta, GA |
| September 23 -29 | AIPPI - Forum and Executive Committee Meetings; Berlin, Germany. |
| September 29 - 30 | PLI Patent Litigation 2005; San Francisco, CA |
| September 29 - 30 | ITMA Autumn Conference; details to follow |
| October 6 - 8 | ECTA 50th Counsel Meeting; Rome, Italy |
| October 16 - 20 | LES Annual Meeting; Phoenix, AZ |
| October 23 - 26 | IPO International Judges Conference; Washington, D.C. |
| October 27 - 28 | PLI Understanding the Intellectual Property License; Chicago, IL |
| October 27 - 29 | AIPLA Annual Meeting; Washington, D.C. |
| November 2 - 5 | FICPI 9th Open Forum; Lisbon, Portugal |
| November 7 - 8 | PLI Patent Litigation 2005; New York, NY |
| November 17 - 18 | PLI Understanding the Intellectual Property License; New York, NY |
| November 28 - 29 | PLI Patent Litigation 2005; Chicago, IL |
| November 30 - December 4 | ICANN Meeting; Vancouver, Canada |
| December 5 | IPO PTO Day; Washington, DC |
| December 12 - 13 | PLI Understanding the Intellectual Property License; San Francisco, CA |
ABA - American Bar Association AIPLA - American Intellectual Property Law Association AIPPI - Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriete Intellectuelle ECTA - European Communities Trade Mark Association FICPI - Federation Internationale des Conseils en Propriete Industrielle FCB A - Federal Circuit Bar Association ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers INTA - International Trademark Association IPO - Intellectual Property Owners Association ITMA - Insititute of Trade Mark Attorneys (UK) LES - Licensing Executives Society LAIPLA - Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association MARQUES - Association of European Trade Mark Owners NYIPLA - New York Intellectual Property Law Association PLI - Practicing Law Institute WIPO - World Intellectual Property Organization | |
NEWS
Trademarks and Unfair Competition
Comoros: Accession to Paris Convention top
On January 3, 2005 the Union of Comoros submitted to the World Intellectual Property Organization its instrument of accession to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property ("Paris Convention"). The Paris Convention will enter into force in the Union of Comoros on April 3, 2005.
European Union: Parallel Imports and Exhaustion of Trademark Rights top
In a further round of the ongoing parallel import issue in the European Union, the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") recently addressed the issue of what constitutes "put on the market" under Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC).
Article 7(1) states "The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
In Peak Holding AB v. Axolin-Elinor AB (C-16/03), the Court ruled that the term "put on the market" under Article 7(1) "must be interpreted as meaning that goods bearing a trade mark cannot be regarded as having been put on the market in the European Economic Area (the European Union member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) where the proprietor of the trade mark has imported them into the European Economic Area with a view to selling them there or where he has offered them for sale to consumers in the European Economic Area, in his own shops or those of an associated company, without actually selling them".
However, in the present case there was an agreement for sale of the goods between the two companies and the goods were transferred from the one company to the other in the relevant market. Accordingly, the court held "in a contract of sale concluded between the proprietor of the trade mark and an operator established in the EEA, of a prohibition on reselling in the EEA does not mean that there is no putting on the market in the EEA within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Directive and thus does not preclude the exhaustion of the proprietor's exclusive rights in the event of resale in the EEA in breach of the prohibition".
In short, the contract of sale constituted placing the goods on the market and exhausted the proprietor's trademark rights by operation of law. The remedy is for breach of contract, but no action is available to enjoin the sale of the goods under trademark rights.
United States: Trademark Trial and Appeal Board System Online top
The United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") online system is active. The TTAB system provides PDF images of papers in active TTAB matters. Coverage includes documents filed since January 2003. The system may be accessed at http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/.
Domain Names and Other Internet Matters
India: Opens Domain Name Spaces top
India is opening its domain name space on February 16, 2005 under the following suffixes:
.in
.co.in
.net.in
.org.in
.gen.in
.firm.in
.ind.in
Macedonia: Domain Registry Opens top
It is now possible to register domain names in Macedonia under the suffixes .com.mk, .net.mk, and .org.mk. Macedonia has a local presence requirement for domain name registrants.
Puerto Rico: Introduces Four New Extensions top
Puerto Rico has launched four new extensions: .pro.pr, .biz.pr, .info.pr, .name.pr. These extensions are unrestricted.
Patents
United States - Cow Power? Generating Electricity from Organic Waste top
Anthony A. Coppola, Partner, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
Often, patents are viewed as, for lack of a better term, a form of "bovine excrement." Recently that has become literally true, as that by-product has found practical use in the generation of power.
With oil prices continuously escalating and given the rash of cold weather recently, one might very well fret over the cost of their next utility bill. Well this might not be that big a concern in the not too distant future if some dairy farmers get their way and start using their cows to mass produce methane gas.
Gas is an alternative energy source; generated in the decomposition of organic substances. For reasons of its generation, this gas is referred to as "biogas." An important component of biogas is methane, which originates from organic substances or their by-products through fermentation or decomposition. In larger production contexts, methane is generated through the gasification of coal or in petrochemical processes and is utilized as a heating fuel and for combustion power, as well as raw material for synthetic products, such as acetylene or syngas (synthetic gas).
However, given the environmental issues of the day and the continuing quest for alternative fuels, another source for the production of methane gas is being harnessed - cows.
Despite their gentle nature and big, brown eyes, dairy cows present troubling environmental challenges. A well-fed dairy cow produces 120 pounds of manure every day (40,000 pounds per year per animal). Manure-filled runoff pollutes surface water and groundwater with bacteria and nitrogen. In addition, there is the issue of flatulence. It has been estimated that a single cow can produce 100 to 200 liters of methane per day in this way. This naturally occurring methane is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. The environmental benefits of transforming this methane to energy are obvious. Environmentalists see farm-based methane production from cow manure and other agricultural waste as a wonderful cycle of reuse that transforms waste products into useful new products. For farmers it could be a good way to diversify the farm, improve the bottom line and manage manure and other wastes responsibly.
Although the technology has been slow to catch on in the United States because historically there have been few incentives, recent technological advances and government incentives have made "cow patties" more appealing.
A United States Patent has recently issued which discloses a process for extracting methane gas from organic substances including what are often referred to as "agricultural materials." The readily available agricultural organic materials include animal carcasses, waste, entrails, and vegetation.
U.S. Patent No. 6,802,974 entitled, "Method and Device for Producing Biogas, Which Contains Methane, from Organic Substances" issued on October 12, 2004 to Erich Rebholz and Johann Reithmayer.
The '974 patent discloses a three-stage process for processing agricultural waste to produce a biogas containing methane. The three stages include aerobic fermentation, charring and thermophilic methane fermentation. The process sounds more complicated than it actually is. The organic materials are decomposed by living-micro-organisms that are introduced into the collected materials. The process produces solid residual pieces and gaseous wastes containing carbon dioxide. The solids are carbonized (burned) to create a charcoal product and wood gas. The wood gas is combined with thermophilic (heat generating) fermentation micro-organisms under anaerobic conditions to produce a biogas containing methane.
Another patent takes a similar process a step further to generate alcohol and biodiesel from biogas containing methane. U.S. Patent No. 6,824,682 entitled, "System and Method for Extracting Energy from Agricultural Waste" issued on November 30, 2004 to Jerrel Branson. The '682 patent discloses taking agricultural waste, subjecting it to anaerobic digestion in order to produce methane containing biogas and reforming it to a syngas containing carbon monoxide and hydrogen. This syngas is then converted to an alcohol, which can be stored or fed to a reactor to produce biodiesel.
The effluent from these anaerobic processes can also be utilized as a slow release fertilizer and the wastewater from the process is immediately reusable in agricultural operations, thereby creating highly efficient systems.
In California, a few farmers have harnessed their manure to generate electricity to run their own farms. Unfortunately, California has 1,950 commercial dairies in operation (leading the nation in the production of milk and cheese) and nearly 2 million dairy cows but only five farms have fully implemented this technology. However, use might be on the upswing shortly. The State's continuing energy shortages have focused attention to creating diverse sources of energy. Although utilities remain focused on the bottom-line, lawmakers are attempting to account for the public benefits offered by pollution reduction, reduction of greenhouse gases and the reduction of fossil fuel reliance.
Thanks to two recent pieces of legislation, 13 additional methane systems are being constructed and advocates are certain that more are coming. These projects will receive matching funds from the California Energy Commission.
In Vermont, cows are also producing more than just milk. At the Blue Spruce Farm in Bridport (about 60 miles southwest of Montpelier), the manure from 1,500 milk cows is being used to generate electricity for the Vermont Public Service Corp. (the State's utility company). While the California farms are generating electricity for self-contained use on the farms themselves, this is the first time anywhere in the United States that a farm-based generation of electricity has been offered to electricity customers as a renewable choice.
The methane generated from the manure is collected and used to power a generator, which in turn sends electricity to the utility company's power grid.
Approximately 1,000 customers are now paying 16 cents per kilowatt-hour for their electricity to support this new endeavor by the Blue Spruce Farm. This is about 4 cents more per kilowatt-hour then other residential households pay. The customers are willing to pay the extra cost to support the farmers and this alternative fuel source - hoping that prices will drop once the technology is perfected and becomes more widely used.
Just imagine someday heating your home with "cow power." It could happen sooner than you might think - and that's no bull.
Discussions
United States - Proposed Federal Rules On Electronic Discovery top
Jeffrey A. Schwab, Partner, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
Various federal circuit courts and some state courts through decisions or rule changes have attempted to deal with perceived special needs and potential abuses of "electronic discovery", that is, discovery of emails, data and other electronic correspondence retained by a company.
An Advisory Committee of the United States Judicial Conference is considering amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to address some of the issues, notably broad discovery requests which impose significant burdens on parties and potential penalties in instances where internal procedures purge email or data on a regular basis.
Background:
In establishing systems for preserving and tracking data, companies have significantly increased their repositories of discoverable information. These repositories often are preprogrammed to recycle and purge data and often although data exists, it cannot easily be extracted in a manner responsive to a discovery request. This has resulted in broad requests in litigation for electronic documentation and attempts to sanction litigants for allegedly not properly responding either because of the purging or because the data - although technically existing - cannot be organized and provided as requested due to technical issues.
Proposals:
Proposed Rule 37(f)
A new Federal Rule 37(f) is being proposed. It would bar imposition of sanctions on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information if the party took "reasonable" steps to preserve the information and loss of the information occurred due to "routine" operation of the party's electronic information system. At least some commentators suggest the rule change should go further and prevent sanctioning unless a party "intentionally or recklessly failed to preserve the information". There appears to be wide support for some type of "safe harbor" provision, although it is not without its opponents.
Proposed Rule 26 Changes
A number of proposed amendments to Rule 26 are under consideration. These address issues of the difficulties in retrieving discoverable data from storage.
Under these proposals a party would only be required to turn over information that is "reasonably accessible." Other electronic information would not have to be disclosed unless ordered by the court. The court would then have to assess the matter with the responding party making a showing of why the information is not reasonably accessible and the requestor being required to demonstrate good cause for disclosure of the information. Similar provisions are being proposed for subpoenaed third parties who are asked to provide the information.
Given the large volume of data which might be available to be turned over within relatively short prescribed deadlines, a rule change is being considered which will protect inadvertently disclosed information, for example, protected attorney-client privileged information.
Rules are also being proposed which would require that electronic discovery issues be addressed at the initial pretrial conference where the scope of the electronic discovery which might fall within the context of the case would be proposed by both sides and subject to an early decision by the court.
Other rule changes are proposed to make clear that electronically stored information is a "business record" as defined in other Rules relating not only to discovery, but, as well, in the context of admissible evidence.
Conclusion:
The issue is controversial and there is no assurance that all or any of these proposed rule changes will be adopted, although the prevailing consensus is that there will be some modification of the Federal Rules over the next few months.
If nothing else, the consideration of these rule changes should reinforce the cautions we provide to all clients. Emails are not telephone conversations which fade into memory. They are memorialized business record documentation of activities often providing adversaries with damaging sound bites when all that was intended by the sender was a thought or concept and not a reasoned conclusion. Taken out of context these communications can seriously alter the course of a litigation.
United States - The Supreme Court Strenghtens The "Fair Use" Trademark Defense top
Richard L. Crisona, Partner, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
As reported in our October 1, 2004 Newsletter, the United States Supreme Court had granted certiorari this term to review a case about the scope of the fair use defense in trademark infringement litigation. Resolving a split among the circuit courts of appeal, the Court has now held in a unanimous decision that a defendant sued for trademark infringement who asserts the fair use defense does not have to negate any likelihood of confusion between the mark and its fair use of the mark in order to prevail on the defense. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 2004 U.S. LEXIS 8170 (Dec. 8, 2004). The case involved the parties' competing use of the term "micro color" for makeup. According to the Court, each "party to this case sells permanent makeup, a mixture of pigment and liquid for injection under the skin to camouflage injuries and modify nature's dispensations, and each has used some version of the term 'micro color' (as one word or two, singular or plural) in marketing and selling its product." Id. at *7-8.
"In 1992, Lasting [Impression] applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) under 15 U.S.C. § 1051 for registration of a trademark consisting of the words 'Micro Colors' in white letters separated by a green bar within a black square. The PTO registered the mark to Lasting [Impression] in 1993, and in 1999 the registration became incontestable. § 1065." Id. at *8. In 1999, KP Permanent Make-up produced a brochure using the term "microcolor," and Lasting Impression demanded that KP Permanent Make-up cease its use of the term. KP Permanent Make-up then began a declaratory judgment action against Lasting Impression, and asserted the fair use defense in response to KP Permanent Make-up's trademark infringement counterclaim. Id. at *9. "After finding that Lasting [Impression] had conceded that KP [Permanent Make-up] used the term only to describe its goods and not as a mark, the District Court held that KP [Permanent Make-up] was acting fairly and in good faith because undisputed facts showed that KP [Permanent Make-up] had employed the term 'microcolor' continuously from a time before Lasting [Impression] adopted the two-word, plural variant as a mark." Id. at *10. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding it to be error "for the District Court to have addressed the fair use defense without delving into the matter of possible confusion on the part of consumers about the origin of KP [Permanent Make-up's] goods." Id.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that "a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b), while the defendant has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion in raising the affirmative defense that a term is used descriptively, not as a mark, fairly, and in good faith, § 1115(b)(4)." Id. *24-25. The Court reasoned that:
it is only when a plaintiff has shown likely confusion by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant could have any need of an affirmative defense, but under Lasting [Impression's] theory the defense would be foreclosed in such a case. "It defies logic to argue that a defense may not be asserted in the only situation where it even becomes relevant." Nor would it make sense to provide an affirmative defense of no confusion plus good faith, when merely rebutting the plaintiff's case on confusion would entitle the defendant to judgment, good faith or not. Id. at *19 (citation omitted).
The Court noted, moreover, that the fact "some possibility of consumer confusion must be compatible with fair use" arises as a consequence of a trademark holder's original decision to adopt a descriptive mark and to register it based on a claim of having established secondary meaning. The Court found that there is "no indication that the statute [the Lanham Act] was meant to deprive commercial speakers of the ordinary utility of descriptive words. 'If any confusion results, that is a risk the plaintiff accepted when it decided to identify its product with a mark that uses a well known descriptive phrase.'" Id. at *22 (citation omitted).
In a cautionary note, however, the Court stated that while it "recognize[s] that mere risk of confusion will not rule out fair use," its holding "does not foreclose the relevance of the extent of any likely consumer confusion in assessing whether a defendant's use is objectively fair." Id. at *23. The Court left for future cases precisely what role such likely consumer confusion will play in assessing the objective fairness of the use.
Patent and Trademark History top
GEORG JENSEN
Frank Terranella, Associate, Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
On January 7, 1941, Georg Jensen Inc. received a trademark registration for the logo identifying their brand of tableware and other goods made of silver, gold and platinum:
Georg Jensen was born on August 31, 1866 (the seventh of eight children) in Radvaad, Denmark, a cluster of homes around a factory north of Copenhagen in a lovely countryside. The location of Jensen's birth and early childhood was an important factor in his lifelong work which always reflected natural forms and themes from nature.
Jensen came from humble beginnings. His father was a grinder who worked in the knife factory in Radvad. His mother was a housemaid and the daughter of a traveling locksmith. Jensen worked with his father at the factory from an early age and had little schooling. He was always creating things as a child and his family recognized and tried to encourage his artistic instincts. When he was 14 the family moved to Copenhagen so he could be apprenticed to a goldsmith. Apprentices worked long hours in those days and on Sundays he attended a technical school for additional training. What little spare time he had he spent modeling clay. His desire seems to have always been to become a sculptor.
Eventually Jensen gained admission as a sculpture student to the Royal Academy of Art in Copenhagen from which he graduated at 25 in 1892. The year before, one of his pieces, The Harvester, had been exhibited at the Charlottenborg annual exhibition, a prestigious art show held in the same building as the Royal Academy. Although Jensen never succeeded as a sculptor, this early training significantly influenced his work as a silversmith.
Needing to support his family, in the Spring of 1904 Jensen rented a tiny room in the center of Copenhagen and opened a silversmith business. During the first years, Jensen made almost only jewelry because the financial investment was small compared to that required to produce flatware or hollowware. In his jewelry, Jensen created a new style that was not modeled on any style of the past. It was all silver, inexpensive to use and incorporated amber, malachite, moonstones and opals, none demanding excessive investment. The pieces were meant for the middle classes as pieces of art, not for the upper class who looked for precious stones in elaborate settings. He made rings, brooches, earrings, bracelets and necklaces and in particular hat pins, more than 100 of them. His pieces often depicted things from nature and were modeled like small sculptures. There was no mass production. He achieved almost immediate success. In the early days of Jensen's shop, all sales were done from the workshop and Jensen sold almost everything himself from a drawer in his worktable and later from a green cupboard behind his workspace. He was a character. In the studio he dressed in a flowing smock. When he went out he wore a large black broad brimmed hat and carried a silver topped walking stick. If the weather was cold he also wore a large cape over his velvet suit and flowing tie. He would eat the lunch he brought from home at a cafe near his workshop and while eating make small sketches on newspapers left by other patrons for pieces he would create
In 1905 Johan Rohde came to Jensen with clay models of flatware he wanted reproduced in silver. Rohde and Jensen were polar opposites. Rohde was restrained and aristocratic, well read and intelligent, of great culture and self critical. He was cautious and methodical in his designs. Jensen was a romantic, uneducated, exuberant and impulsive. But something clicked. Rohde liked the finished flatware so much that he suggested a more permanent collaboration in which he would design for the Jensen workshop with the items offered for sale on par with Jensen's own work. In 1916, Rohde designed the most famous of Jensen's flatware patterns, ACORN (pictured above). The lifelong collaboration was based on mutual respect and esteem. Both died within months of each other in 1935.
However, Georg Jensen's death did not put a stop to the company, which bears his name to this day.
Copyright © 2005, Abelman Frayne & Schwab. All rights reserved.
Lawabel, Abelman, L Design, P Design, S Design, T Design, W Design, X Design, Y Design, and Abelman, Frayne & Schwab are trademarks of Abelman, Frayne & Schwab
