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

From Coco Chanel to Zac Posen, many fashion designers' personal names (and personalities) have become synonymous with the fashion houses they represent. Anything associated with a famous designer's name often becomes more coveted due to the reputation, history, and recognition that the designer carefully built around it over time. As a result, designers' personal name trademarks often become their most valuable assets. The Joseph Abboud case illustrates some of the issues associated with selling, assigning, or licensing all of a designer's names and trademarks to someone else, and designers should take note of its implications. 
 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

The Ninth Circuit addressed the practical issues and challenges concerning the rights associated with domain names and trademark rights on the World Wide Web. In Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., No. 05-56794, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's broad injunction preventing Perfumebay from using the conjoined form of the word because such use created a likelihood of confusion with eBay.  Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc., No. 05-56794, 14521 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2007).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

On June 28, 2007, a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS overturned almost 100 years of federal precedent by declaring that vertical price fixing is no longer automatically presumed illegal under U.S. antitrust law.  This decision allows manufacturers to set fixed prices for their products and forbid retailers from offering discounts.  This ruling permits manufacturers to adopt “resale price maintenance agreements” that forbid discounting, which is likely to have a negative impact on off-price and independent retailers.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Today, the California Supreme Court unanimously decided Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. S140308, and held that the "one additional hour of pay" in Labor Code section 226.7 constitutes a wage and not a penalty. This decision is significant because a wage is subject to a three year statute of limitations (Code of Civ. Proc. Section 338), while a penalty is only subject to a one year statute of limitations (Code Civ Proc. Section 340). Moreover, the ramifications of this decision may have broader wage hour implications. Sheppard Mullin's Labor and Employment attorneys are evaluating the impact of this new decision on employers and will provide a more detailed analysis in the next issue of the California Labor and Employment ALERT.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

In a recent case, the Ninth Circuit rejected the aesthetic functionality defense to trademark infringement as applied to those who sell products with popular logos of other companies on them, like Volkswagen's and Audi's logos and other marks, the Nike Swoosh, the Playboy bunny ears, and the Mercedes tri-point star.  Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. et al., 457 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2006). In that case, Au-Tomotive Gold sold key chains and license plate covers bearing Volkswagen's and Audi's logos and word marks. A trademark infringement lawsuit arose, and the district court concluded that Au-Tomotive Gold did not infringe Audi's and Volkswagen's trademarks because of aesthetic functionality.

 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

In a decision of great interest to California employers, the California Supreme Court yesterday agreed to settle the dispute among California's Courts of Appeal regarding whether the "payment" of one hour's pay at the employee's usual rate for a missed meal and/or break period mandated by California Labor Code §226.7 is a "wage" subject to a three- or four- year statute of limitations or a "penalty" subject to a shorter one-year statute of limitations. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments