Definitely. Van Cleef & Arpels owns that design. It was a bit copycat of Klum to come out with a jewelry line that was so similar to Van Cleef & Arpels.

I agree with Van Cleef & Arpels : when I first saw Heidi Klum's jewelery I immediately thought it was exactly the same as Van Cleef & Arpels !!

Tough issue. Same as the popular "flower" motif. I learned that you have to change your flower design a little and be sure that it is not exactly like someone else's if you want to use, e.g., a 5-petal flower that u see EVERYWHERE, even in nature. That clover is in EVERY ancient church! Same as the shape of a square, a rectangle, a circle, etc. Perhaps they should go after the artisans of the 12th century, but then again, perhaps they claim to be one of the original artisans from the 12th century. How long have they been around anyway -- not sure?! That is amazing! I don't know Heidi's line well, nor do I know Van Cleef & Arpels line well, but that's tough! I guess that may have been a challenge to them, dipping into their bottom line. Look out all of you who do the hoop earring! I'm just saying . . . and I am aware of copyright laws, but geez! Some things seem to be somehow arguable! Guess that's what the courts are for, huh! Tough situation!

People are so greedy!!!! They "oen" the clover design? What about the heart, or the triangle? What about the sign of the "cross"? Can anyone imagine all of the lawsuits pending on that one? LOL

OK, I am a professional artist and am pretty well known in certain circles. I am not some semicreative cog in the wheel of industry. It is my opinion as a creative person that nobody or no corporation should be able to own a visual natural shape or (on another topic) things like the genetic code of a natural organism. One of the most simple things for a "designer" to draw, a heart, a clover, doi, doi, doi, how uncreative to begin with and then to think one owns the shape - preposterous!

Heidi needs to get over herself. She is altogether too ego centric and "cute", even her annual revowing to be true to her husband is typically over the top. What, do life changing vows have a statute of limitations of one year for them?

Someone owns the clover inspiration/idea, that's insane; does the RC church own the cross idea?
Those laws are made to foster greed. We must remember when an Indian tribe could not legally use some age old name or something from their history due to it having been copyrighted by greed.
It is greed that turned this country around.
If for our general well being liquor and nicotine addiction adds can be banned then we must realize that GREED adds must now be banned. It is greed that is destroying this society. Remember that "health insurance" is actually doctor bill insurance; naturally when a doctoir did not have to bill a person whom he/she knows the bill to either the government or the "insurance" company will be much higher.
On top of that, the peson who does pay her/his own bill is charged a highly inflated amount because neither the insurance companyh nor the government pays the entire amount that they have been billed. And if the individual refujses to pay the entire amount he/she risks serious credit rating damage.

I think she should be able to sell her line of jewelry. So does Van cleef own all the clovers that grow ???? That is just crazy.It is her design and she should be able to show it to the world

EVERYONE'S A JEWELRY DESIGNER THESE DAYS..IT'S REALLY NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO SHAPE WIRE OR STRING BEADS....IT'S ALL OVERRATED.........

Again.....it should be a quality issue. You can get look-alikes in just about anything, it boils down to quality. Maybe Heidi's line was superior to theirs?

Personally I believe Mother Nature owns the clover design. God created it so it's been in its' orginal form since the beginning of time. Copyright laws can't over ride designs in nature.
The only way Klum and partner could have broken the rules was to create a clover design piece exactly or nearly exactly as the competition who put it out on the market first. Even at that no way can claim to own "the clover."
There is probably more to the story that we read here.

The cloverleaf is a universal symbol and should be treated as such. This is as ridiculous as McDonald's trying to copright the name McDonald when we Scots have had the McDonald name for centuries and share it willingly with the rest of the world. Clan McDonald is one of the largest Scottish families. (It means "son of Donald" by the way.) Anyway, unless Ms. Klum's cloverleaf design was exactly like Vancleef and Arpels, she should be allowed as many cloverleafs as she wants. They are just a greedy foreign bunch who are having trouble selling their overpriced stuff in these troubled times.

You know, I look at Klum, then look at her husband and think----WHAT THE ..................!

Who originated using the ever popular circle necklace? Every designer seems to have used the circle! What about the three circle design? Again every designer has used that idea. I also know several designers use fhe fleur de lis. I think the lawsuit is ridiculous. Does Van Cleef need money theses days??? Are they afraid people will buy Heidi's because possibly more people will be able to afford hers?
She is not trying to pass it off as Van Cleef's. Her name is on it, unlike plagerism where someone writes the words of another and claims it as his/her own words. Shame on Van Cleef. Unfortunately, Heidi, as you say so eloquently,"One day you're in and one day you're out." Sorry they did this to you, especially, after all of your hard work.