Gap Back In New Dehli Court Now Green The Gap Trademark Battle

Green the Gap, an Indian company, mainly sells accessories and home decor items made out of waste including beer cans, rubber tyres and fruit cartons.

GAP are back in a New Delhi High Court this time with Indian Retailer Green The only weeks after we reported Two New Delhi Firms In Battle with GAP In Trademark Lawsuit 16/07/2015.

NEW DELHI: Gap, the US apparel company that recently opened its first store in India, is taking legal recourse to defend its trademarks again, this time against small Indian retailer Green The Gap says Live Mint.

In March, the owners of Green the Gap were slapped with a legal notice by Gap asking them to change their name within 14 days. 

New Delhi: An Indian recycling company which uses junk to create accessories is fighting a legal trademark suit launched by US clothing giant Gap Inc. demanding that the firm change its name.

Green the Gap, an Indian company which runs three stores in the country, mainly sells accessories and home decor items made out of waste including beer cans, rubber tyres and fruit cartons.

Vimlendu Jha, founding owner of the firm, which also sells clothing for other brands, accused Gap in an interview last Friday of seeking to “bully” a small Indian company.

In March, the owners were slapped with a legal notice by Gap asking them to change their name and remove any reference to the company from their labels within 14 days.

A month later, the US retailer told the Indian firm it could keep its name for registration purposes but must remove any mention of Gap in their labelling and on their website, Jha said.

“Gap said our company is infringing upon their branding and that we are riding on their goodwill to create confusion in the minds of buyers,” Jha told AFP.

“We were shocked and angered that a company of that size and stature and supposed respectability is getting threatened by a small business,” he said.

The legal notice, a copy of which was seen by AFP, said Gap was “seriously concerned” about the adoption of its “well-known trademark” by the Indian entity.

K&S Partners, the law firm that issued the notice on behalf of Gap, was not immediately available for comment.

But Gap said it “does not comment on pending litigation” in response to an email query from AFP.

Jha added that Green the Gap’s name was an environmental reference.

“We wanted to ask people is it possible to consume less and can we consume green? We upcycle trash which means we add value to junk by creating a new and useful product,” he said, adding that the idea of competing with Gap was nowhere in their minds.

“For us ‘gap’ is a word in the English language that means void, absence. How can you monopolise a common English word?

“Next we will hear we can’t use apple and orange in our lexicon. This is plain ridiculous.”

He said the company was now in verbal negotiations with Gap to try to settle the dispute.

Jha launched Green the Gap five years ago as part of Swechha, an Indian advocacy group he set up to pursue environmental sustainability and proper pay for workers.

The name was inspired by a Swechha education scheme known as Bridge the Gap, said Jha.

Gap, which is the largest casual wear retailer in the US with annual sales of over $15 billion, has some 3,000 outlets in 90 countries across the world. It also owns global brands such as Old Navy and Banana Republic.

Local media reports have said Gap plans to open stores in India some time next year, which would make it one of the biggest global brands to launch in the country.

The government in the past few years has relaxed restrictions for international retailers to set up shop in the country as it seeks more foreign investment.

India’s trademark act stipulates that another company cannot sell products with an identical or confusingly similar label.

Jha said the US retailer’s legal suit should ring alarm bells for the government.

“Opening up the market for larger players must not mean that smaller players are shut out,” he said. AFP

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller

RELATED ARTICLES

» Two New Delhi Firms In Battle with GAP In Trademark Lawsuit

» Fake Ugg boots seizure in Southampton 'Europe's biggest'

Two New Delhi Firms In Battle with GAP In Trademark Lawsuit

GAP America

GAP are in a battle with two New Delhi companies in India for trademark violations reports the Economic Times.

The article goes on to say; Gap, the US apparel company that recently opened its first store in India, is taking legal recourse to defend its trademarks here. Gap has dragged two Indian apparel manufacturers to the Delhi High Court, alleging trademark violations for using labels such as Gap-In, Gap-2 and Gap Two.

Priya Rao, a lawyer representing Gap, said that the court appointed commissioners in one case each in Delhi and Bengaluru who conducted raids and seized goods that were considered to have infringed the company's trademarks.

Gap became aware of the violations in January and issued legal notices to no effect, according to the court order in May issued in response to Gap's plea for a permanent injunction to restrain the manufacturers.

In January, the court had said that Gap is a well known company and it has an established reputation in general public for the trademark. "The act of the defendant in selling apparel under the trademark Gap-In is an infringement upon the rights of the plaintiff," the court said, while giving an injunction in January in one of the cases.

In the court documents, Gap lawyers argued that the Delhi Based manufacturer had been using Gap, Gap-2 or Gap-Two logos, which are deceptively similar to that of the San Francisco-based fashion giant.

The court issued an ex parte interim order restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or using the trademark and ordered the issue of summons to them returnable on October 12.

Gap sells clothing, accessories and personal care products under the Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Athleta and Intermix brands. Its products are available in more than 90 countries.

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller


RELATED ARTICLES
» Gap back in New Dehli Court with Green The Gap Trademark Battle

Tory Burch Counterfeiters Ordered To Pay $41M In Trademark Violation

Tory Burch with double T logo pic: via Daily Mail UK

TORY BURCH and former husband, Chris Burch, had finally come to an agreement over their heated legal battle concerning his stake in the brand. Although few details have been disclosed, the pair - who founded the label in 2003, before their split in 2007 - have resolved all pending claims. Additionally, two minority investors had been brought on board - Capital Partners and General Atlantic now found themselves in a new legal wrangle.

Despite the apparent similarities, Lix & J had countersued Tory Burch for unfair trade practices, tortious interference with its business relationships, defamation, and trademark infringement. Lin & J claimed that its Isis Design is inspired by the Isis cross or a Coptic cross, which is a symmetrical cross with short, flanged bars, typically set in a circle. Nonetheless, in addition to finding that Lin & J had fabricated and destroyed evidence, the court ruled against Lin & J. This $41.2 million win for Tory Burch will be another notch added to her designer belt and not to mention her $3 billion empire.

Tory Burch’s TT Design (Left) versus
Lin & J’s Isis Cross Design (Right)

After two years of battle in court, Tory Burch LLC

(“Tory Burch”) wins $41.2 million ($38.9 million in damages and $2.3 million in attorneys’ fees) in its trademark infringement lawsuit against Lin & J International, Inc. (“Lin & J”), which was filed on May 31, 2013, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. Tory Burch alleged in its 2013 complaint that Lin & J’s unauthorized use of Tory Burch’s federally registered trademarks and copyrighted works violated trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, and unfair competition laws. In particular, Tory Burch claimed that Lin & J wrongfully reproduced earrings, necklaces, pendants, cuffs, bangles, and bracelets bearing unauthorised reproductions of Tory Burch’s famous TT Designs.

U.S. Reg. No. 3,029,795; Registration Date: December 31, 2005

U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote ordered Youngran Kim and her company Lin & J International Inc. to pay $38.9 million in damages, attorneys’ fees of $2.3 million and costs of the action to be determined later, along with interest for the aforementioned until full payment is made, according to court documents.


Friday’s order ends a case first brought in May 2013, which accused Kim of being one of the largest

counterfeiters in the U.S. Kim had argued that she independently created her “Isis cross” design based on another mark sold by a separate company she founded in 2003.


Judge Cote granted summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch in December, saying Kim willfully counterfeited and infringed the designer’s trademarks.


The judge said the evidence showed that the Tory Burch logo has acquired secondary meaning and was entitled to protection, determining that there was no dispute that the public was moved in some degree to buy Tory Burch products bearing the logo because of the source.


Judge Cote also ruled that Tory Burch clearly established a likelihood of confusion with respect to the products in question.

U.S. Reg. No. 4,363,739; Registration Date: July 9, 2013

The judge had previously found
that the defendants had fabricated and destroyed evidence during discovery and struck their opposition papers to Tory Burch’s summary judgment bid. She sanctioned the defendants’ lawyer Howard Z. Myerowitz of Song Law Firm LLC $10,000 for misrepresenting the day he served Tory Burch with the opposition papers and forwarded the issue to the state bar.




The complaint alleged Kim sold
knock-off products to more than 420 wholesalers and retailers, which eventually distributed the imitation jewellery to thousands of sellers.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Tory Burch is represented by Natalie L. Arbaugh, Kristen A. McCallion, Michael A. Bittner and Irene E. Hudson of Fish & Richardson PC.


The defendants are represented by Howard Z. Myerowitz and Jeremy M. Doberman of Song Law Firm LLC.
The case is River Light V LP et al. v. Lin & J International Inc. et al., case number 1:13-cv-03669, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller


RELATED ARTICLES

» Barbour buys search ads to fight counterfeit goods
» Tory Burch Files FOUR Lawsuits to Curb Counterfeiting
» Skechers Sues Steve Madden For 'Go Walk' Patent Infringement

Skechers Sues Steve Madden For 'Go Walk' Patent Infringement

Steve Madden 

California-based Skechers USA Inc. said today it is suing Steve Madden Ltd. for infringing on its patented Skechers Go Walk line.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is seeking damages. According to the lawsuit obtained by Footwear News, Skechers argues that Madden’s Setta style, which has a woven elastic upper and molded rubber bottom, directly infringes on seven patents owned by Skechers that are used in its Go Walk collection.

Skechers states in the suit: “The innovative design of the Skechers Go series and other

One of the Skechers' Go Walk patents (top)
and the Steve Madden Setta style (bottom).

such styles have significantly contributed to the company’s recent successes …. The fame and popularity of various styles of shoes both within and beyond the Skechers Go series is evident in the fact that millions of pairs of Skechers Go series shoes have been sold since their introduction on the market.”

“While we prefer to compete in the marketplace, Steven Madden is selling its infringing footwear to Skechers’ wholesale customers and in other sales channels where the Skechers products are sold, and we believe this is causing us enormous damage,” said David Weinberg, COO of Skechers, in a release. “We plan on taking similar action against any company that develops any products that infringe on the patents of the Skechers Go Walk or any of our other popular product lines, and any retailer that sells the Steven by Steve Madden Setta style.”

Skechers declined additional comment. Steve Madden also declined a request for comment.

It’s not the first time the two brands have gone to court. The most recent case in 2011, Skechers sued Madden for infringing on its patented Twinkle Toes line. The case was settled out of court.

The Steve Madden Setta shoe style.

✿ » For trusted authentic luxury products & services, visit The UK's Most Trusted Online Reseller



RELATED ARTICLES
» Steve Madden Settles TCPA Violations for $10 Million
» Taylor Swift Settles "Lucky 13" Lawsuit, Avoiding Trial
» Stella McCartney sues Steve Madden Over Handbag Rip Off