Burberry Sues JCPenney Over Check Pattern

Pic: JCPenney

JCPenney under the cosh again as Tuesday when luxury apparel maker Burberry filed suit against the retailer for trademark infringement reported BrandChannel. Burberry claims JCPenney is selling outerwear that features the “famous Burberry check” pattern that mimics its signature look too closely.

The particular objects that drew Burberry’s ire are scarves sold with matching coats. In addition, Burberry is upset that JCPenney continued selling the pieces for months after the former informed the latter of the issue, Reuters reports

“Even though defendants’ infringing products are of inferior quality, they appear superficially similar to genuine Burberry products,” Burberry said, according to the wire service. “Defendants’ actions are intended to deceive and mislead consumers into believing that defendants’ or their products are authorized, sponsored by or connected to Burberry.”

Burberry took another swing at JCPenney in the filing by calling its clothing “substandard,” the New York Post reports. 

What’s not mentioned in Burberry’s suit: the period in which the iconic British brand ditched its familiar check after it became associated with working-class Brits who caused such trouble that some bars wouldn’t allow anyone sporting Burberry plaid in the door, Marketplace observed.

But that was then. Now, Burberry would like JCPenney to shell out for the alleged infringement. The apparel maker is asking for triple damages, any profit, or up to $2 million for each trademark that has been infringed.

Content thanks: BrandChannel

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

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

RELATED ARTICLES

» Gucci Awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion

» Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy

Gucci loses GG trademark in the UK

GUCCI luxury fashion house has had its GG trademark revoked after nearly 20 years on the UK register.

The trade mark application, submitted by Luke Connelly, was opposed by the Italian fashion house earlier this autumn on the grounds that the logo was too similar to the interlocking GG logo held under trademark by Gucci.

Gucci claimed there was a notable visual link between the two trademarks and it would offer an “unfair advantage” to Connelly, who submitted the trademark application to use the logo for clothing.

It was also claimed that “Gucci’s reputation may suffer damage by association with a non-luxury or low cost fashion brand.”

Connelly logo left, Gucci logo right

The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) wiped away the interlocking double G logo, registered in 1984, on the grounds of non-use.

But in the decision on November 5, the IPO’s Judy Pike said Gucci can continue using the mark to sell goods (including perfumes and soaps) under class 3.

Gucci registered the GG logo in four classes – 3, 14, 18 and 25 – in the UK. Between them, the classes cover goods such as antiperspirants, watches, handbags and t-shirts.

In June 2012 Fashion rival Gerry Weber applied to revoke the mark for a lack of use, dating from 2003 to 2012.

UK trademarks can be revoked if they are not used within a five-year period following their registration.

Gucci’s response, filed by in-house counsel Vanni Volpi, was criticised by Pike for being unspecific. For example, Volpi provided figures on sales of goods in various years, but did not state whether they were UK sales.

Gerry Weber claimed Gucci’s evidence fell “far short” of the mark for showing genuine use, which “cannot be proven by probabilities or suppositions, but must be demonstrated by solid and objective evidence” when talking with DrapersOnLine.

In a 44-paragraph ruling, Pike revoked the mark covering classes 14, 18 and 25. Her reasons included Gucci submitting leather belts in its exhibits, despite class 25 expressly limiting belts to textile belts, and a lack of sales invoices.

There were, however, some invoices provided for class 3 goods, and better evidence overall to show use in this class, meaning the mark stays registered for this specification.

According to the decision, class 3 covers “Non-medicated toilet preparations, cosmetic preparations, perfumes, soaps, dentifrices, preparations for the hair; anti-perspirants, depilatory preparations”.

The decision means Gucci cannot protect the GG logo under classes 14, 18 and 25, which cover goods such as scarves and coats, in the UK.

But the hearing officer rejected Gucci’s claim on the grounds that the two logos were “visually similar only to a very low degree.”
Gucci was ordered to pay £400 towards Connelly’s legal expenses, as he represented himself.

Gucci also entered and lost lost a four year battle with brand Guess, from which it had been seeking $221m (£138m) damages on the grounds of trademark infringement, counterfeiting and unfair competition in May this year. Gucci did however, win when they were awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion in the same year.

RELATED ARTICLES
» Gucci Awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion
» Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy

For luxury authentic products and services; http://www.luxuryonlinestore.co.uk

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

eBay defeats Tiffany in counterfeit jewellery suit

NEW YORK | Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:34pm EDT

Tiffany & Co.

EBay Inc on Monday won dismissal of aTiffany & Co lawsuit accusing the auctioneer of deceiving customers by allowing the sale of counterfeit Tiffany jewellery on its website.

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in Manhattan rejected Tiffany's allegation that eBay engaged in false advertising, the last remaining claim after a federal appeals court on April 1 dismissed the rest of Tiffany's trademark infringement case.

The case has been viewed as a challenge in the United States to Internet companies such as eBay, Google Inc and others that host services that other people provide, and do not responsible for users' trademark violations.

"Tiffany failed to establish that eBay intentionally set out to deceive the public, much less that eBay's conduct was of an egregious nature sufficient to create a presumption that consumers were being deceived," the judge wrote.
Mark Aaron, a Tiffany spokesman, declined to comment. Michelle Fang, eBay's associate general counsel, called the ruling "an unequivocal validation of eBay's business practices."

About $3.99 billion, or 46 percent, of eBay's 2009 revenue came from the United States, a regulatory filing shows.

Tiffany accused eBay of advertising the sale of its goods through ads on its website, and through sponsored links on search engines, which would sometimes link to its own website and exhort readers to "Find Tiffany items at low prices."
Sullivan agreed with Tiffany that eBay knew "a portion" of the goods being sold were fake.

But he said Tiffany failed to show that eBay's advertisements misled customers or necessarily implied that all Tiffany products sold on its website were genuine.
"Tiffany has failed to present evidence that rises to the high level of egregious misconduct required to demonstrate that eBay had an intent to deceive customers," he wrote.

Sullivan also pointed to eBay efforts to fight fraud, which the company has said costs up to $20 million a year.

In its April 1 ruling, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld Sullivan's July 2008 dismissal of most of Tiffany's lawsuit, saying that "eBay did not itself sell counterfeit Tiffany goods; only the fraudulent vendors did."
Tiffany is based in New York and eBay in San Jose, California.

The case is Tiffany (NJ) Inc et al v. eBay Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 04-04607.

For luxury authentic products and services; http://www.luxuryonlinestore.net

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Content thanks: Reuters