Fashion Apparel Law Blog : Fashion Apparel Law Lawyer & Attorney : Sheppard Mullin Law Firm : Fashion Legal Issues

Though the news of Nike's exclusive deal with the NFL broke some time ago, the agreement will officially go into full effect this month and the look of Monday Night Football is about to change. Replacing adidas, this will be the first time that Nike, who was a NFL supplier in the mid-nineties and has maintained individual deals with players, will exclusively supply all 32 teams. The deal, for which Nike reportedly paid $1.1 billion dollars, covers the entire player's uniform including jerseys, belts, pants, socks and gloves.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Tyler Baker

Luxury brand titan Louis Vuitton recently achieved a significant victory over counterfeiting of its designer products. In an action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Louis Vuitton sued the Eisenhauer Road Flea Market, its owner, Bruce L. Gore, and its manager, Patricia D. Walker, for contributory trademark infringement, alleging that the defendants had failed to prevent vendors from selling fake Louis Vuitton goods at the flea market. See Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Eisenhauer Road Flea Market, Inc., No. SA-11-CA-124 (W.D. Tex.). Louis Vuitton stated that counterfeit “LV” products were abundant at the flea market and that Louis Vuitton had given Gore and Walker sufficient opportunities to discipline their vendors that engaged in phony sales. Louis Vuitton alleged, notwithstanding this notice, that Gore and Walker chose to be “willfully blind” to such infringing activity. Gore testified that he warned market tenants not to sell counterfeit goods, only to have those vendors nonetheless engage in distribution of bogus items after they said they would not.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We all remember the sweet scent of our first perfume and only need a simple whiff to propel us back to our youth. Studies show that scent memory is the longest lasting of all of our five senses, meaning you will always be able to instantly recognize the scent your grandmother wore when you were a child. But what if one day that perfume you hold so dear suddenly smelled slightly different? Recently, the perfume industry has become subject to stricter standards forcing longtime perfume makers to abruptly change their ingredient and formulas.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Shannon King

The multi-million dollar trademark and trade dress dispute between Italian fashion label Gucci and American designer Guess?, Inc. ("Guess?") marches on toward trial as Judge Shira Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York largely rejected Guess?'s motion for summary judgment to dismiss Gucci's claims on February 14, 2012. The Court granted summary judgment and dismissed Gucci's claims for monetary relief on the basis of federal trademark dilution as to two designs but left the majority of Gucci's infringement claims untouched.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Alona G. Metz

In the recent landmark case of Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011),[1] the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a web-hosting company that owned and operated servers was liable for contributory copyright and trademark infringement when it failed to take steps to curtail alleged infringement committed by Chinese websites that used its servers. Louis Vuitton sued Akanoc Solutions, Inc. (“Akanoc”), Managed Solutions Group, Inc. (“MSG”), and Steven Chen (the owner of both companies) for contributory copyright and trademark infringement under the Copyright and Lanham Acts, respectively. MSG leased servers, bandwidth, and IP addresses to other companies, such as Akanoc, who then operated the servers and otherwise ran the business. Louis Vuitton alleged that some of Akanoc’s China-based customers directly infringed on Louis Vuitton’s trademarks and copyrights. Louis Vuitton sent the defendants eighteen Notices of Infringement documenting the infringements occurring on websites hosted by defendants, yet the defendants were unable to identify any action taken in response to the notices sent by Louis Vuitton and the websites continued to operate. Louis Vuitton alleged that defendants had actual knowledge of the website's activities, that defendants knowingly avoided learning of the full extent of infringing activities, and that defendants knowingly enabled the infringing conduct by hosting the websites and permitting them to display the counterfeit products.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Feder v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey joined the New Jersey Superior Court in weighing in on the issue of whether a retailer violates consumer privacy state law by requesting a customer's zip code at the point of purchase.  Feder was brought by the same plaintiff’s lawyers and with claims similar to those in the state court case Imbert v. Harmon Stores, Inc.(Bed, Bath & Beyond). Imbert was decided last month, but without any written decision, and permitted that case to proceed past the pleading stage. The District Court in Feder, however, issued the first written opinion under the New Jersey statutes, finding that allegations that a zip code was verbally requested could not support a claim under New Jersey law.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

A New Jersey state trial court has initially weighed in on the issue of whether a retailer violates state law by requesting a customer’s zip code at the point of purchase.  In a case fashioned after the California Supreme Court's decision in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, 51 Cal.4th 524 (Feb. 10, 2011), New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephan Hansbury has denied a motion to dismiss brought by Harmon Stores, Inc. (Bed, Bath & Beyond), finding that the plaintiff Robert Imbert adequately pled a claim for violation of New Jersey's Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:11-17 (“TCCWNA”).   The Court's ruling allows plaintiff to proceed beyond this initial stage, but no liability has been found.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

THE SITUATION IS ASKED NOT TO COVER HIS SITUATION WITH ABERCROMBIE ANYMORE

Abercrombie & Fitch issued a press release offering The Situation (of MTV's The Jersey Shore fame) "substantial payment" to stop wearing Abercrombie's clothes. The company's main concern is brand dilution. The press release explains the company is worried that The Situation's "association with our brand could cause significant damage to our image" and that this association "is contrary to the aspirational nature of our brand, and may be distressing to many of our fans." Whether this was a clever public relations strategy to generate publicity about the brand during the important back-to-school season or whether it is a legitimate branding issue that had something to do with the dip in Abercrombie's stock following the press release remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that people are talking about it. Common wisdom is there may be no such thing as bad publicity; however, it cannot be ignored that Abercrombie's stock fell sharply the day following the press release.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

On August 10, 2011, Judge Victor Marrero denied Christian Louboutin S.A.'s motion for a preliminary injunction to enforce its U.S. trademark (Registration No. 3,361,597) for "lacquered red soles on footwear" covering "Women's High Fashion Designer Footwear" in International Class 25. The Court held that "[b]ecause in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, the Court finds that Louboutin is unlikely to be able to prove that its red outsole brand is entitled to trademark protection, even if it has gained enough public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning." The decision not only concluded that the Lanham Act does not "exten[d] protection to a trademark composed of a single color used as an expressive and defining quality of an article of wear produced in the fashion industry," but also established a new precedent by concluding that trademark protection under the Lanham Act for the fashion industry differs from that in other industries.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Share Link