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

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.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As we previously reported here, Christian Louboutin ("Louboutin") filed a lawsuit against Yves Saint Laurent ("YSL") in early April, alleging that YSL and its affiliated companies violated Louboutin's red sole trademark by selling women's shoes with red uppers and outsoles alleged to be virtually identical to Louboutin's red sole trademarks.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Social media has become a part of everyday life. As Shakespeare has written: "This news is not old enough, yet it is every day news." The minutiae of every moment is narrated through status updates. Digital photographs are taken and instantaneously posted minute-by-minute on the Internet for the world to see. This lightning fast use of social media raises new and different intellectual property challenges which have not been previously addressed by courts. On January 14, 2011, the Southern District of New York addressed a particularly interesting copyright question raised by the use of Twitpic – a service that allows users to post pictures to the Twitter microblogging and social networking website. Agence France Presse v. Morel, 2011 WL 147718 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011). 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

"There's an app for that.™” The fashion world, and indeed, the general consuming public, is well familiar with this phrase. The expression has become so ubiquitous that Apple has even successfully registered it for trademark protection. But what is the import for the fashion industry? What does "that" refer to, and what are its legal ramifications? What’s behind the simple swipe of a finger that allows consumers to sit front row at fashion shows around the world?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Online piracy and internet counterfeiting are unfortunate realities in our Information Age. On the Internet, a counterfeiter can sell consumers a pair of counterfeit Louboutins or a fake Hermes Birkin bag purchased with the simple click of a mouse. Other online pirates can sell consumers unauthorized copies of their favorite television show, movie, or music with impunity. In response to the onslaught of online counterfeiters, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) and senior Republican member Orrin Hatch (R-Ore) have introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act ("COICA")(S. 3804)[1], a bipartisan bill that would give the Justice Department an expedited means to track and shut down unlawful domains devoted to the unauthorized downloading, streaming, and sale of copyrighted content and counterfeit goods. On November 18, 2010, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted in favor of COICA and sent the bill to the full Senate for consideration.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 30, 2010, the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate unanimously passed the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Act (“IDPPA”) (S. 3728), which was introduced by Senator Charles Schumer (NY) on August 6, 2010.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

High fashion eyewear company Revolution Eyewear, Inc., won a total victory in a patent infringement case filed against the company and its president, Gary Martin Zelman, by Aspex Eyewear, Inc. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Revolution’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent RE 37,545 (‘545 patent) in Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., et al., No. 09-61515. The Court ruled that Aspex was legally barred from pursuing its patent infringement claims against Revolution’s bottom-mounting magnetic clip-on eyewear. The Court also granted summary judgment in favor of the other defendants, which sell bottom-mounting eyewear under a license from Revolution.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the perfume industry has blossomed into a $20 billion dollar a year business, it has encountered a formidable adversary in the form of "smell-alike" fragrances. Such perfumes are unlicensed "copies" of popular fragrances that are meant to appeal to those who wish to possess premium scents without the premium prices. Smell-alikes have achieved a significant percentage of the perfume market because there is a lack of copyright protection concerning fragrances in most countries. To combat this problem, European perfume manufacturers have been battling in court for protection of their scents for the past decade.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Abercrombie & Fitch has taken quick action to protect its signature fragrance "Fierce" against pop diva, Beyonce Knowles' proposed naming of her forthcoming perfume by Coty, Inc. after her alter ego, "Sasha Fierce". According to the complaint for trademark infringement filed by A & F on September 19, 2009, A & F has held a registered trademark for the mark "Fierce" for fragrances since May 2003, and "Fierce" is the scent wafting from all A & F stores as it is dispersed either though a scent machine or by constant spraying of the cologne by A & F employees. The goal being that every A & F garment is infused by the citrus scent.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The Finnish textile and clothing company Marimekko announced recently that it reached a settlement with Dolce & Gabbana S.r.L. and Dolce & Gabbana Industria S.p.A. over the use of its trademarked Unikko floral design pattern.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In an age of "knock-offs," patent protection is an avenue that can be used by the fashion and apparel industry to protect products.  Every week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office grants dozens of patents on a diverse range of apparel and fashion accessories (for example, shoes, hats, handbags and clothing among other items).  Most of these patents are "design patents."  Under United States Patent Law, there are two broad categories of patents:  "utility patents," which protect the way an invention is used and works, and "design patents," which protect the ornamental appearance of a useful article.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Piracy is not just a problem on the high seas or the internet: fashion designers have fallen victim, too.  Current copyright laws protect only the artwork of a design, such as labels, logos, prints and embroidery.  Leave off the label or change the logo slightly, and manufacturers and copy-cat designers have free reign to duplicate the cut, shape, style, and silhouette of an item of clothing or an accessory.  This widespread practice of design piracy by popular retailers is legal…for now.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

A recent case involving fragrance manufacturer Davidoff and retailer CVS addressed the importance of quality control procedures related to fragrance product packaging.  In Davidoff v. CVS Corporation, Davidoff, the trademark holder for his line of "Cool Water" fragrances, alleges that CVS violated the Lanham Act by selling counterfeit Cool Water products and by selling decoded gray-market products.  On June 25, 2007, the Southern District of New York granted Davidoff's request for preliminary injunction enjoining CVS from selling any counterfeit and gray-market Davidoff goods, finding that Davidoff had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link