United States: Protecting The Intellectual Property Of Jewelry Designs

Last Updated: October 30 2018
Article by Dyan Finguerra-DuCharme and Giovanna Marchese

Protecting designs in their jewellery is an uphill battle for jewellers under US jurisprudence. The most common avenues for protection lie in the laws of copyright and trade mark; however, each have limitations and hurdles and often leave designers without a sure means of enforcing their rights. This article explores the circumstances under which jewellery may qualify for protection under US copyright and trade mark laws and discusses the shortcomings associated with each.

The threshold requirement for copyright protection – originality

Copyright holders of jewellery design own a bundle of exclusive rights in their work, including rights of reproduction, distribution and the right to create derivative works based on the copyrighted work. To qualify for copyright protection, a piece of jewellery must be an author's original expression and possess a minimum level of creativity. While the Copyright Act of 1976 affords copyright protection to a work the moment it is created (provided it is original and has been fixed in a tangible medium of expression), formally registering a work with the Copyright Office has many advantages. For one, copyright registration creates a public record of the work's validity and provides key facts about the work, such as the year of creation, the title and the author or owner of the copyright. In most federal courts, registration is a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

To obtain registration, the Copyright Office requires a showing of originality as laid out in the Copyright Act and the 1991 Supreme Court decision Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service. In Feist, the Court held that the Copyright Act implies that some ways of selecting or arranging uncopyrightable material will trigger copyright, but others will not.

In the opinion of the Copyright Review Board, some combinations of common or standard design elements may be sufficiently creative in how they are juxtaposed or arranged to support a copyright. However, not every combination or arrangement meets this test. In the context of jewellery design, it appears that the more complicated the design, meaning the more elements contained in the overall work, the more likely the Copyright Office will register the work. Whether elements are "complicated" enough to warrant originality, however, seems to be an increasingly subjective standard.

Furthermore, originality is difficult to establish when the design is based on elements that occur in nature, such as a flower or four-leaf clover. Jewellery designs featuring mere variations of common or standardised designs (e.g. solitaire rings, simple diamond stud earrings, plain bangle bracelets, simple hoop earrings, among other commonly used designs, settings, and gemstone cuts), familiar symbols, and obvious combinations or arrangements of commonplace designs will not be registered.

While the Copyright Office provides examples of standardised designs, familiar symbols and commonplace elements that are not eligible for registration, these contemporary guidelines often clash with designs that were afforded registration by the Office directly after the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976.

Examples of jewellery designs that received copyright protection from the Copyright Office are not readily available without going through the arduous and expensive process of executing a formal search. As such, guidance on what is considered "original" in jewellery design is most easily ascertained through an examination of case law.

In Cosmos Jewelry v Po Sun Hon (Central District of California, 2004), the designs at issue resembled the plumeria flower, a common variety of Hawaiian vegetation which is also known as a symbol of the state. The designer, Wong, obtained the copyright registration in his design in 1997. When he sued another jewellery manufacturer for infringement of the plumeria design, the defendant challenged the validity of the registration and argued that the work was not sufficiently original because numerous elements of Wong's design reflect elements of the plumeria blossom found in nature. Despite strong similarities between key elements of Wong's design and elements of the plumeria blossom found in nature, the court held that Wong's expression of the plumeria was sufficiently original.

In Van Cleef & Arpels Logistics v Jewelry (Southern District of New York, 2008), the Copyright Office had granted Van Cleef 's application on January 7 1976. When another party challenged the originality of the copyright registration, the court held that Van Cleef 's rendition of a military clover insignia, used by the 88th Infantry of the US Army, was copyrightable. Despite the commonness of the quatrefoil shape (i.e. a four-leaf clover) and the previous appearance of the image on Army-approved pins and sweetheart necklaces, the court held the arrangement of the elements was sufficiently original without much further explanation.

Since 2016, however, the Copyright Office has published numerous opinions denying applications for works that, despite being extremely similar to the applications mentioned above, it determined were not sufficiently "original". For instance, the Office denied Eli Eldad Niv's application to register his jewellery design in the works titled Plain Thorn Bracelet with Logo, Plain Thorn Ring with Logo, Pave Thorn Bracelet with Logo and Pave Thorn Ring with Logo. These works each consisted of variations of three braided strands of metal resembling thorny branches as shown below.

The Copyright Office found that the designs did not contain a sufficient amount of original and creative authorship to support copyright registration because they only featured one or two basic elements in a simple combination and the features were not combined in a way that differentiated them from their basic shape and design components.

On his second request for consideration, Niv argued that the works were a less natural interpretation of the thorny stem and therefore embodied sufficient creativity to support registration. Nevertheless, the second request was denied and copyright registration refused for lack of original copyrightable expression.

Comparing Niv's artistic expression of braided thorns to Van Cleef 's clover and Wong's Plumeria blossom, all three works are similar in that they are artistic or liberal expressions of elements or plants found in nature. That the validity of Van Cleef 's copyright registration (i.e. the originality of the work) was affirmed in 2008 by a federal court, rather than a Copyright Office examiner, underscores the assertion that the Copyright Office has raised its threshold of originality for registration of jewellery designs. That said, even when faced with such case law, the Copyright Office justifies its determinations of originality without much meaningful explanation.

For instance, when denying Niv's application, the Office held that the thorn bracelet was less original than the plumeria blossom in Cosmos because the work included "minute characteristics of the blossom petals, the arrangement of blossoms and other flourishes in different variations on the 'multi-blossom' [jewellery]." Beyond using vague language, such as "flourishes" and "minute characteristics," the Office gives no clear reasons why Wong's simple plumeria blossom, which closely resembles the same expression of the plumeria blossom found in nature, is any more original than Niv's complex braided thorny design with additional branches emanating from each braided link, something that does not readily occur in nature.

In short, it appears that the Copyright Office has raised the bar for originality, often leaving jewellery designers without protection. It is difficult to predict with much certainty the conditions under which the Office will deem a work to be sufficiently "original" as to warrant protection.

The threshold requirement for trade mark protection – secondary meaning

Trade mark rights in the context of jewellery generally involve a product's design, which is protected under the Lanham Act as unregistered "trade dress". The Supreme Court has held that when seeking protection for a product design, the owner must show evidence of "secondary meaning". When a product design has secondary meaning, it functions as a "single source identifier", meaning that when viewing the design, the consumer automatically recognises the shape or configuration of the product as originating from one source (or brand). For example, when consumers see Cartier's signature Love bracelet design, they automatically know it was made by Cartier. Factors considered in determining whether a product design has attained secondary meaning include: (1) advertising expenditures, (2) consumer studies linking the product design to the source (i.e. "purchaser perception"), (3) unsolicited media coverage of the design, (4) sales success and the number of customers, (5) attempts to plagiarise the product design, and (6) length of time and exclusivity of the use. Thus, while copyright often protects a jewellery design from the point of inception, trade mark can only protect jewellery design after it has been on the market for at least five years, the manufacturer or designer has spent a considerable amount of money advertising the product, the product has been made available to innumerable consumers because of its success, and several parties have attempted to infringe the design.

Parties claiming rights in trade dress must also offer a precise expression of the character and scope of the claimed trade dress for a court or jury to evaluate secondary meaning. For example, in Yurman Design v PAJ (Second Circuit, 2001), David Yurman sought to establish trade dress protection for an entire line of products that all featured its signature cable design. The court held that Yurman's explanation that "the artistic combination of cable [jewellery] with other elements" was overly broad and did not sufficiently articulate the specific common elements sought to be protected. As a result, while the court found Yurman's copyright in its signature cable braided design was sufficiently original, it held that Yurman failed to identify the elements and features that distinguish its trade dress.

Years later, when Yurman brought another trade dress infringement against a different defendant for similar designs in Yurman Design v Golden Treasure Imports (Southern District of New York, 2003), Yurman did not seek to establish trade dress protection over an entire line of jewellery without reference to specific elements, but rather set out all the various designs as embodied in particular pieces of jewellery, seeking to protect the trade dress of each piece individually. In response, the court held that its characterisation was sufficient and granted it protection.

These cases demonstrate that while one element of jewellery design may occur in multiple pieces from one source, owners seeking to establish trade dress protection would do best to articulate the protection sought in each individual design in a collection. They also illustrate that obtaining protection through trade dress is not an easy task for a jewellery designer, and it is often not achieved until significant marketplace penetration has occurred.

Where do jewellery designers go from here?

Copyright and trade dress may offer some protection for certain designs at different time periods. The Copyright Office seems to have increased the bar for demonstrating originality, making it harder for designers to prove. Trade dress may not be available until years after a product has been launched unless the design can be considered instantly famous (which can be shown where knock-offs abound - on the added condition that it is not functional).

Intellectual property practitioners were hopeful that the Supreme Court's decision last year in Star Athletica v Varsity Brands would provide specific guidance for what constitutes "originality" in the copyright context. Unfortunately, though the Court resolved the longstanding question of whether clothing design could be "functional" and thus barred from copyright, it declined to opine on the originality of the clothing in question: cheerleading uniforms featuring arrangements of chevrons, colour blocking, and braiding, among other basic elements. Thus, we are left to struggle with the vague "modicum of creativity" standard from Feist, which often promises more than the Copyright Office delivers.

Jewellery designers and manufacturers should bear these issues in mind when deciding whether and when to enforce their rights against an infringing party. Because the copyright application process is relatively simple, it often pays to seek registration. The downside, of course, is a public record that the particular design is not original and therefore cannot be used as a sword to stop others from copying. If a jewellery design is intricate and reflects grandiose designs, the chances are better that it will pass the Copyright Office's test for originality. On the other hand, jewellers who are known for simple, delicate works may have greater success in the trade dress realm. For now, these are the two best bets for protecting designs in jewellery.

Originally published in Managing Intellectual Property

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions