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

Judge Harold Baer in Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp., No. 09 Civ. 6925 (HB), 2010 WL 2541367 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010), ruled that Gucci had sufficiently alleged facts to defeat a motion to dismiss in a suit brought against three defendant credit card merchant service providers for trademark infringement. The litigation stems out of an earlier action, Gucci America, Inc. v. Laurette Co., Inc., No. 08 Civ. 5065 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2008), in which Gucci successfully sued defendant Laurette for operating a website, "TheBagAddiction.com," which sold counterfeit Gucci designs. Gucci later brought suit against three credit card merchant companies, Durango Merchant Services (a Wyoming corporation), Frontline Processing Corporation (a Nevada corporation principally operating in Montana), and Woodforest National Bank (a Texas corporation), alleging that those companies aided and assisted Laurette and other similar website operators in infringing Gucci's marks. According to the allegations set forth in Gucci's complaint, Durango established credit card processing services for web companies like Woodforest and Frontline that sold counterfeit products.  Gucci brought trademark infringement and counterfeit claims against Laurette based upon website sales of counterfeit Gucci products. Gucci alleged that the credit card processing services established by the three defendants were essential to Laurette's sale of counterfeit Gucci products, and, for that reason, Durango, Frontline, and Woodforest were equally responsible for direct, contributory, and vicarious trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and New York state law. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction and that Gucci had failed to state a claim.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Lovely ladies like these are likely protected by copyright due to their distinct personality and fashion flair, and creators should take steps to maintain protection particularly if there is a possibility of sequels, merchandising, and other licensing uses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Online sample sales often mean less drama and less trampling than the average warehouse sale, but this may not be a good thing for luxury brands whose products are all about exclusivity and that "gotta have it now" sensation.  Therefore, when contracting with internet retailers, luxury brands may find it necessary to mandate certain protections from the retailer to maintain a sense of excitement and to safeguard the brand.  These include requiring site memberships, restricting the sale period, supplying a limited stock, protection from search engines, and not to mention, ensuring that the website design and presentation of product aligns with the brand aesthetic. Read more here.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

L’Oreal scored a major victory in trademark protection against smell-alike perfumes this past month in England's Court of Appeal. In L’Oréal v. Bellure, the court held that Bellure's use of lists in its advertising that compared its perfumes' scents to those of well-known L'Oréal perfumes constituted trademark infringement. This widely-reported decision indicates a sea change in European trademark law, which is now recognizing the marketing and monetary effort a company expends when creating and maintaining trademarks. It also is a broad decision, perhaps having wide-ranging effects in other industries. This decision implements judgment in the European Court of Justice – the highest court in the European Union. Thus, the decision in this case applies to all of Europe.  
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link