Alexander McQueen sued over royal wedding dress

Kate Middleton in the gown

ALEXANDER MCQUEEN has denied claims that the royal wedding dress was copied from another designer, branding the allegations "ridiculous". Reports Glamour UK.

"We are utterly baffled by this legal claim," says an official statement from McQueen. "Christine Kendall first approached us at Alexander McQueen almost four years ago, when we were clear with her that any suggestion Sarah Burton's design of the royal wedding dress was copied from her designs was nonsense."

"Sarah Burton never saw any of Ms Kendall's designs or sketches and did not know of Ms Kendall before Ms Kendall got in touch with us - some 13 months after the wedding. We do not know why Ms Kendall has raised this again, but there are no ifs, buts or maybes here: this claim is ridiculous."

Hertfordshire-based Christine Kendall is suing the fashion house for breach of copyright, after she submitted her sketches of wedding dress ideas to the Duchess of Cambridge.
Kendall alleges that she sent her sketches to the royal five months before the wedding and in return received a letter of thanks from the office of Prince William and Prince Harry in 2011.
"Miss Catherine Middleton has asked me to write and thank you so much for your letter of 18th November enclosing bridal gown designs," an official wrote.

"Miss Middleton was most interested to see your work and very much appreciated you taking the trouble to write. Should she wish to see more of your designs I will of course be in touch."
However a spokesperson for the Palace argued that they'd never seen the designs.
Kendall's solicitor, Humna Nadim of Manchester firm Kuits, says: "Proceedings have been issued because our client is certain that her company's design was unfairly taken and copied."

Content thanks: Glamour UK


✿ » 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
» Burberry Sues JCPenney Over Check Pattern
» Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy

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

Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

Fake Louis Vuitton Speedy bag

LOUIS VUITTON have fallen out once again with China's leading online e-tailer TAOBAO MARKETPLACE less than three years after the two signed a collaboration agreement Delorate Agency reported 14/10/2013.

The agreement Alibaba Group, China’s massive e-commerce firm, had announced with their partnership with French high fashion label Louis Vuitton that aimed to stop the sale of counterfeit luxury goods in China. And let's not forget the Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products Delortae Agency reported 20/3/2011 

The Alibaba-owned Taobao marketplace, China’s largest consumer-to-consumer online shopping outlet, is often flooded with knock-off designer goods in a country that largely turns a blind eye to their distribution. Alibaba, as a whole, handles more web transactions annually than both Amazon and eBay combined.

Louis Vuitton has filed suit in Beijing in connection with the sale of counterfeit goods on TaoBao, Alibaba’s e-commerce marketplace. According to Louis Vuitton’s complaint, which was filed in Beijing’s Haidian District Court, three individual sellers on the TaoBao platform were formerly convicted of operating a “serious” counterfeit counterfeit involving the sale of Louis Vuitton goods between 2011 and 2014. As a result, Louis Vuitton is owed 250,000 yuan, or $37,900 at current exchange, in economic damages.

Delortae Agency also reported in 2013, copyright and trademark infringement lawsuits against a number of counterfeit websites. Louis Vuitton set their sights on iOffer and their individual users (iOffer is a San Francisco based online trading community website that consists almost entirely of China based sellers) Websites also did not avoid their "net" as www.cheaplouisvuitton.com, a major infringement website blatantly flouting the major brands trademark with fakes, were also sued by the design house.

Like Chanel, before them, targeting individual sellers Louis Vuitton is targeting individual iOffer sellers also, for selling counterfeit items rather than to direct the suits to iOffer itself. No longer limiting themselves to the suits against domains alone and taking the fight straight to individual iOffer member merchants. Gucci also have sued individual iOffers members in similar suits against 102 individual sellers.

This maybe a trend that we will be seeing more of. Since the law seems to be telling the brands in recent rulings is that it is the brand responsibility to to protect it's property as shown in eBay Defeats Tiffany in Counterfeit Jewellery Suit, which Delortae Agency reported 20/10/2013.

Tracking the vast majority of the individual sellers will be difficult to locate and identify as they grow more sophisticated in covering their tracks to protect their proceeds from counterfeit sales. This does mean however, their individual shops within Marketplace websites such as eBay, Taobao, iOffer or Amazon, will be shut down immediately supported by a court order. 

Any funds Department of Justice, in association with the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Centre, who can prove and trace the funds that individual sellers have amassed from the sale of counterfeits, they can be turned over to the respected brand houses who filed the suit. 

This sent a very strong message to the brands but this current case could be sending a stronger one to the individual sellers.

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


RELATED ARTICLES
» Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands
» Taobao Marketplace Teams up with Louis Vuitton to Combat Counterfeits
» Luxury Group Kering sues Alibaba for helping counterfeiters
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Gucci Awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion

Stella McCartney sues Steve Madden Over Handbag Rip Off

Stella McCartney SS15

STEVE MADDEN finds himself in trouble again, this time being taken to court by UK designer Stella McCartney.

It has always been a difficult line to cross when does a high street copy of a design cross the threshold to trademark infringement.

LEFT: STELLA MCCARTNEY FALABELLA BAG; RIGHT: STEVE MADDEN BTOTALLY BAG

All the major brands have at one time or another challenged this. High street retailers like H&M and Zara and  have become giants in the apparel industry by mass producing runway-derivative styles at wallet-friendly prices. Also vice versa: Saint Laurent was recently accused of knocking off a Forever 21 dress and selling it for 150 times the original price.

LEFT: STELLA MCCARTNEY FALABELLA BAG; RIGHT: STEVE MADDEN BTOTALLY BAG

Stella McCartney has an idea on the matter. The UK-based designer has filed a lawsuit against Steve Madden for copying her popular Falabella bag just a little too closely with his BTotally bag. According to WWD, the 22-page legal document cites the charges against Madden as "trade dress infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, trade dress dilution, and design patent infringement" involving the "marketing and sale of a knock-off".

This is not a new issue and Steve Madden Ltd were sued last year by Balenciaga for doing much the same thing.

But, when is a high street copy a knock-off?


✿ » 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
» Steve Madden Settles TCPA Violations for $10 Million
» Taylor Swift Settles "Lucky 13" Lawsuit, Avoiding Trial
» Skechers Sues Steve Madden For 'Go Walk' Patent Infringement

Chanel Brand Sues Entrepreneur in Trademark Violation

Chanel No: 5

Chanel Inc. is suing a Lithonia entrepreneur for at least $2 million, claiming the businessman is infringing on the global luxury company’s trademark logo and products.

In a suit filed recently in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, Chanel said Eric Williams is marketing and selling counterfeit products bearing the company’s logo through his Haus of Ebon accessories store at bonanza.com/booths/hausofebon, Chanel said the company is promoted on Facebook and Pinterest social sites.

Williams could not be reached for comment.

Chanel has been successful in going after businesses that the company claims have violated its trademark, joining other major brands determined to protect their products. Microsoft, for example, has sued several Georgia companies to protect its software.

Chanel said the fake products cause confusion and “deceive customers.”

In April, Chanel won an $894,650 judgment against a Las Vegas businessman the company said counterfeited and sold fake Chanel products, according to Courthouse News Service. Last year, an Indiana salon owner was forced to drop “Chanel” from her business’ name.

Chanel said the Haus of Ebon products carrying its logo include cases and covers for phones and other electronic devices and cosmetic cases. The company said the products with its luxury “mark” will be mistaken for “the genuine high quality goods” offered by Chanel.

According to Forbes magazine, Chanel has annual sales of $5.4 billion.

Chanel is seeking profits from any products sold by the Haus of Ebon and damages in the amount of $2 million for each violation of its trademark.


✿ » 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
» eBay defeats Tiffany in counterfeit jewellery suit
» Skechers Sues Steve Madden For 'Go Walk' Patent Infringement
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

Louis Vuitton steps up accessories revamp with new designer

Follow our blog with Bloglovin

Darren Spaziani

LOUIS VUITTON has hired Proenza Schouler accessories designer Darren Spaziani as part of the luxury brand's efforts to reposition itself as more exclusive and upmarket reports Reuters, 25 September 2013.

Louis Vuitton, the world's biggest luxury brand and part of French group LVMH, has been trying to become more elitist after suffering a dip in demand for the 600-700 euros ($810-$940) logo-embossed canvas bags on which it built its profitability.

Earlier this month, a survey of store managers showed its new and pricer bags, such as the 3,500-euro Capucines, were flying off the shelves at European fashion capitals, signalling that the strategy was starting to bear fruit.

Louis Vuitton Capucines bag

Louis Vuitton said Spaziani would create new collections made with "leather of the highest quality".

Delphine Arnault, daughter of LVMH Chief Executive Bernard Arnault and recently appointed No.2 at Louis Vuitton, on Tuesday described Spaziani as "one of the most talented designers of his generation".

"He knows the maison well and will bring modern vision and professionalism to Louis Vuitton's creations," Arnault added in a statement.

Spaziani, 38, who graduated from the elite fashion school London's Central Saint Martins and London College of Fashion, worked for Louis Vuitton from 2004 to 2006.

As well as Proenza Schouler, he has previously worked as accessories design director at Balenciaga, part of Kering, in Paris and did consulting work for Diane von Furstenberg and Tory Burch in New York.

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

Content thanks: Reuters

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.

Target’s Mossimo Messenger knockoff Proenza Schouler PS1 bag?

The Proenza Schouler PS1 Large leather satchel

PROENZA SCHOULER brand’s beloved PS1 bag has an uncanny copy by Mossimo on the sales floor at Target—a knockoff that smarts for designers Lazaro Hernandez and Jack McCollough because they created a Go International collection for the store (which, because of the recent Go International anniversary reissue, is being sold now. But on Wednesday, the Proenza designers, Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez, became aware themselves when Mr. McCollough’s sister in California e-mailed a photo of the Mossimo bag at her local Target and another blog mentioned the similarities. The designers say they are disappointed with Target. Reported the New York Times 25/03/11.

This messenger bag, sold at Target under the Mossimo label. To be sure, the bags are not 100 percent identical. The Mossimo bag £22.38 ($34.99) is made of fake leather, while the PS1 £1,020 ($1,595 for the medium-size version) is of genuine leather. The placement of the straps is slightly different, and the PS1 utilises a distinctive fold-down closure in antiqued brass whereas the Target model has an ordinary turn-key closure. But other design parallels are hard to ignore. The PS1, which Proenza brought out two years ago after a fair amount of research and development, has a V-shaped front flap cross-sectioned with trim detail to suggest a square; so does the Mossimo. And the straps that run over the front of the PS1 are tucked into small flat loops free of hardware; ditto the Mossimo.

“Our whole aesthetical idea with this bag was to take the hardware off,” Mr. Hernandez said on Thursday as he and Mr. McCollough and Shirley Cook, the company’s chief executive, examined photos of the Target bag in their SoHo office. “And the attitude, the slouch of the bag — they got the weight really right,” Mr. Hernandez added with a rueful laugh.

The similarities are not lost on bloggers, though a certain logic is. “I can’t believe how much alike they are!” a commenter said on myaffordablebeauty.com. And here is this unquestioning post from Mattieologie: “I’ve expressed numerous times how much I love Proenza Schouler’s PS1 bag, but I am so far from affording it. But luckily there’s this magical place Target where they make dreams true. Exhibit A: the Mossimo Messenger bag per Target is a clever variation of the PS1 for the fraction of the price.”

The messenger bag, sold at Target under the Mossimo label

Mr. McCollough can understand that people love bargains and knockoffs, but variations, clever or not, rob companies, small companies like Proenza, of opportunities. Reading the post, he remarked, “Yeah, why save up and buy ours when you can buy theirs right away?”

Ms. Cook said that the PS1 “has been a huge part of the growth of our business, as well a significant branding element.” But what especially troubles the designers about what they see as a knockoff is that they have had a collaborative relationship with Target in the mass merchant’s Go International program. Several years ago the designers did a spring collection of about 65 pieces for Target, and recently they agreed to let the merchant reissue some of those looks for its Go anniversary promotion.

“So our product is in Target right now, and then this bag comes out,” Ms. Cook said. “It’s just disappointing, especially from someone we worked with.”
Copying is rampant at all levels of the fashion industry, and legal protection is limited and costly to pursue. But the closeness of the Mossimo bag’s styling, similar enough to invite comparisons to the PS1, is surprising in view of Target’s relationships with designers. For that reason, Mr. McCollough said, he wishes that Target would stop selling the Mossimo bag.

That seems unlikely. On Thursday, in response to my query, a Target spokesman, Joshua Thomas, issued a statement: “Target is committed to offering our guests everyday essentials alongside highly differentiated merchandise, all at a great value. It always has been and continues to be the policy of Target to respect the intellectual property rights of others.” Mr. Thomas said the company had no further comment.

Content Friend: CATHY HORYN

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

RELATED ARTICLES

» Christian Louboutin Fights Dior Over Red-Soled Shoes
» Christian Louboutin Fights Carmen Steffens Red Soles 
» Victory for Versace in counterfeit & fake fashion ruling
» Christian Louboutin Loses Another Red Sole Lawsuit To Zara 
» Jessica Simpson copyright Infringement with Christian Louboutin
» Christian Louboutin red sole battle with Yves Saint Laurent comes to a close 

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.

Dolce & Gabbana close nine shops in protest at being "pilloried"

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana

DOLCE & GABBANA shut shops to protest public criticism.

MILAN, July 19 (Reuters) - Italian fashion designers Dolce & Gabbana closed their Milan stores for three days on Friday in protest at being "pilloried" over their convictions for tax evasion in June, which they say they will appeal.

The words "Closed for Indignation" were emblazoned in the windows of the designers' shop in an upmarket street in Milan, the city where the pair showed their first collection in 1985.

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana were given 20-month jail terms for evading taxes on royalties of about a billion euros ($1.3 billion) by selling their brand to a Luxembourg-based holding company in 2004.

Their lawyers say they are confident of overturning the convictions. The pair are unlikely to spend time in jail due to the complexity and length of the appeals process.

"We are no longer willing to suffer undeservedly the accusations of the financial police and the income revenue authority, attacks from public ministers and the media pillory we have already been subjected to for years," they said in a statement.

The pair said they would continue to pay their more than 250 employees in Milan during the temporary closure of all their nine shops in the city.

D&G Corset

Passers-by stopped to read an article displayed in the shop window that quoted a city councillor saying the city should not let the duo show their collections in communal spaces during the city's famous fashion week in September.

"We don't need to be represented by tax evaders," councillor Franco D'Alfonso was quoted as saying.

Famed for producing sexy corset dresses and bold patterns inspired by Dolce's native Sicily, the fashion house earned just under 1.5 billion euros in global revenues in 2011.

The case is one of the few high-profile tax evasion cases to come to light in Italy, where corporate tax rates are among the highest in the world.

"Taxes are going up all the time," said Marco Daddio, a tailor from Naples whose eye was caught by the unusual appearance of Dolce & Gabbana's shop window on Friday.

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.

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

Content Friend: Reuters

Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy

GUESS Inc. reigned victorious in its second trademark faceoff against luxury giants Gucci in Italy.

An Italian court in Milan rejected Guccio Gucci SpA’s claim that Guess had violated several of its trademarks and even took the step of canceling three of the marks Gucci had registered for Italy and the European Community. Gucci said it will “certainly bring an appeal.”

It’s a win for Guess, after Gucci prevailed last May (see Delortae Agency Report as early as last April) in federal court in Manhattan on a suit raising ostensibly the same issues. Gucci won a qualified victory, when the court awarded it only $4.7 million in damages, a fraction of the more than $221 million it sought.

The Milan decision, an 83-page verdict made public Friday, serves to cancel the diamond pattern, G logo and “Flora” pattern trademarks previously registered by Gucci in Italy and the EU, noting specifically that the “Flora” logo is “not distinct.” Additionally, the court held that Guess’s Quattro G-diamond pattern isn’t related to Gucci’s interlocking double-G pattern.

Guess sought the nullification of the designs in a counter claim following the 2009 filing of the suits in New York and Milan by Gucci.

Gucci bottom and Guess above

A Guess spokeswoman confirmed that Gucci’s other suits against Guess in both China and France are ongoing.

Paul Marciano, chief executive officer of Guess, commented, “In my opinion, the three-year battle in New York and four years in Milan was a result of massive and unnecessary litigation that should have been easily resolved with a simple phone call, which Gucci never made.”

Marciano continued, “The tactics of Gucci are nothing less than bullying. Because of their endless resources, Gucci has been forum shopping all over the world to try and stop Guess from expanding its successful accessories business. It’s fundamentally wrong and unconscionable.”

Gucci described the use of a number of G-based logos by Guess as “unlawful and parasitic free-riding on Gucci’s trademark and, in general, its brand image.”

Gucci said it would “certainly bring an appeal against the above decision, which in its view is potentially dangerous for the protection of ‘Made in Italy.’ In particular, Gucci will ask that the Court of Appeals entirely set aside said decision, by granting both its trademark infringement and unfair competition claims against Guess.”

Pier Luigi Roncaglia, of the Italian law firm Studio Legale SIB, which provided outside counsel for Gucci, said that the trademark matter was secondary in the decision and that the marks were generally not being used by the brand.

“The important aspect of the decision was unfair competition,” he told WWD. “Our main argument, and the one that was recognized in the case in New York, was that those marks were associated with the reputation of Gucci and that Guess was trying to get a free ride based on Gucci’s reputation. That was the core of the litigation and the judge [in Milan] ignored the decision in the U.S., which essentially said that Guess didn’t independently create those designs. That will be the basis for our appeal and the strongest argument for a reversal of the decision.”

Daniel Petrocelli of the law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP, which has provided outside counsel for Guess for many years, asserted, “This case was heard in the birthplace of Gucci and the bottom line is that every single one of its claims was rejected and Guess’ counterclaim was granted.”

He said that Gucci and Guess were still waiting for the scheduling of cases in China and France.

A trademark attorney not involved in the case, Robert Tucker, a partner at Tucker & Latifi LLP in New York, said, “That a court in New York and another in Milan came down with different findings on the same issue is not unusual. Gucci was probably buoyed by the decision in New York and figured it had a slam-dunk in Italy, where it would enjoy hometown advantage.

“These two companies shouldn’t be litigating,” he said. “Any time it’s one titan versus another, it’s really important to look at the downside.”

With words like  “unlawful and parasitic free-riding on Gucci’s trademark and, in general, its brand image.” being banded about, this is sure to be a case that will continue and we will certainly follow every word!

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

Model-Turned-Lawyer Sues D&G Over Tit-For-Tat Pics UPDATE

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana

BASSIL A. HAMIDEH model-turned-lawyer brought another lawsuit against the North American division of Italian design house, Dolce & Gabbana, in a Los Angeles court recently. He claims the company misappropriated an image of him from a 2002 D&G ad campaign. Hamideh filed a publicity rights lawsuit against D&G last year in state court in California. According to his most recent complaint (which he filed this week 05/03/2013), a month after Hamideh filed suit in 2012, D&G immediately acted against him, subsequently using an image of him in a Facebook campaign without his authorisation.

Both lawsuits are pending. Hamideh began practicing law in 2008 after appearing on the cover of L'Uomo Vogue and in a Hugo Boss campaign in 1995, in addition to the 2002 Dolce & Gabbana ad at issue

Dolce & Gabbana USA Inc. retaliated against Hamideh who sued the Italian designing duo for unauthorised use of a client’s image by using the 10-year-old photographs of the lawyer without his permission, according to a lawsuit filed in California state court.

Bassil A. Hamideh, who is represented by Johnson & Johnson LLP in this case, alleges D&G published images of him in a 2012 Facebook campaign, well after their rights expired and one month after Hamideh filed a publicity rights suit against the company on behalf of another model.

Bassil A. Hamideh

If Hamideh is victorious in his lawsuit, it could mean poetic justice for a former male model who, still smarting from alleged abuse by one of the fashion industry's top purveyors, became a lawyer in order “to protect models from such malfeasance.”

“Disheartened by the rampant abuse of models' rights and the systematic unauthorised use of their images and likeness throughout the industry, [Hamideh] became a lawyer so that he could protect models from defendants like Dolce Gabbana,” the suit claims.

In 2002, D&G hired and photographed Hamideh — a familiar resident of Los Angeles, according to the suit — for a “country chic” advertising campaign that also featured supermodel Giselle Bundchen. D&G's rights to Hamideh's likeness ended Dec. 31, 2003, he claims.

In April 2012, Hamideh represented actor-model Christian Monzon in a lawsuit over D&G's alleged unauthorised use of Monzon's image in advertising materials for Dolce Gabbana Classico Fragrance. The suit was eventually dismissed.

The month after Hamideh filed the Monzon suit, D&G allegedly used images of Hamideh from the 2002-03 country chic campaign to promote new products on the company’s Facebook page — even though the rights to them had expired more than eight years earlier.

The model-turned-lawyer said Monday that he believes D&G misappropriated images of him as part of a retaliation scheme stemming from the Monzon lawsuit. Hamideh claims he has suffered emotional and economic distress over the incident.

“People may be led to believe that Hamideh has abandoned his crusade to protect models and 'sold out' or aligned himself with the other side,” the complaint argued.

Hamideh said the act constitutes oppression, fraud and malice, and claims D&G has gained financially from using the images illegally.

Johnson & Johnson attorney Douglas L. Johnson called D&G’s alleged retaliation scheme “a low blow.”

“I was disappointed that they would do this to a lawyer who spent quite a bit of time changing his career path to become an advocate for models’ rights,” he said.

Hamideh is seeking actual, punitive and statutory damages; injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement of profits from unauthorised use; a constructive trust; attorneys' fees and costs; and litigation costs.

A representative for the defendant wasn’t immediately available for comment Tuesday.

Hamideh is represented by Douglas L. Johnson and Neville L. Johnson of Johnson & Johnson LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available.

The lawsuit is Bassil A. Hamideh v. Dolce & Gabbana, case No. BC502164, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Still with Dolce & Gabbana fined 344 million euros by Italian Fiscal Authorities to deal with, sources close to the design house duo feel that this is something that has still a long way to run, will keep you posted.

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

Dolce & Gabbana fined 344 million euros by Italian Fiscal Authorities

DOLCE and GABBANA in the ongoing legal battle over alleged fiscal fraud, Italian Fiscal Police has fined Dolce and Gabbana with 344 million euros, a much lower fine than the 800 million euro, initially anticipated.

The trial has been opened by Italian authorities over Dolce & Gabbana’s alleged fiscal fraud to avoid paying taxes through an entity which the designer duo (also majority owners) set up in Luxembourg in 2004 with the aim of cashing royalty fees.

Dolce and Gabbana Luxemburg sarl was the owner of Gado, which would hold the brand royalties for Dolce and Gabbana. The company, has since, re-structured and re-organized its entire business under one holding company, refuting accusations by the Italian Fiscal Police as unfounded.

Stefano Gabbana, Lionel Messi & Domenico Dolce

If that was not enough, the designer duo still have the matter of Model-Turned-Lawyer Sues D&G Over Tit-For-Tat Pics UPDATE to deal with.

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

Pic credit: Dolce and Gabbana

Counterfeit Fashion Goods Are On The Rise, Thanks To Pressured Wallets And Fast Fashion

According to a recent report by Charlie Thomas of the Huffingtonpost (14/02/13) who reported, pressures on our wallets has led to 22% of shoppers knowingly buying fake fashion goods, forcing genuine luxury retailers to lose out.

The research from online second-hand luxury goods retailer Vestiaire Collective also found just 34% said they knew for sure they have never purchased fake fashion.

Mock 'designer' handbags were the most sought after item, with 31% of those who admitted buying counterfeit items saying they had picked up some replica arm candy. Sunglasses and watches were close behind on 24% each.

Of those who bought fake fashion items, 20% said the designer price tag was the main reason why they didn't buy the real thing. Another 17% claimed to have been duped, thinking they had bought a genuine item but later realising it was false.

Unsurprisingly, it was the younger generations who were more likely to buy counterfeits - those aged 25-34 racked up nearly a quarter of fake-fanciers.

Counterfeit Louis Vuitton

The issue is a major problem for luxury brands - Gregor Jackson, partner at luxury brand consultancy gpstudio, told the Huffington Post UK the value of black market luxury goods accounted for around 10% of the value of legitimate goods.

"For many, focusing 'beyond the product' and delivering a complete retail and service experience has been the key – selling more than a product, selling a whole experience that can't be faked," he said.

"We've also seen brands focus on the way that their products are made to communicate the value they deliver – for example Tiffany's taking its customers behind the scenes through their social media. Others have made products harder to counterfeit – for example by using specific materials or creating limited editions."

Are fast fashion and mass manufacturing to blame?

Jaana Jatyri, founder of trend forecaster Trendstop.com, told the HuffPost UK the rise in fake fashion items had been intensified by the buy now, throw away tomorrow attitude of fast fashion.

"Fast-paced fashion trends result in a consumption cycle where looks are 'only for a season', and people would rather pay as little as possible on a given item to be able to change their look frequently," she said.

"Most people wouldn't be able to easily afford designer prices, and most simply don't care if their bag is plastic. Luxury is aspirational, it was never meant to be purchased by everyone. With the media portraying designer looks as 'must-haves', the rise of a counterfeit industry is an inevitable consequence."

The mass manufacturing techniques adopted in countries like China had also made producing good-looking fakes easier, with better quality fakes hitting the high street at seriously competitive prices.

Counterfeit Hermès Birkin

"Luxury items manufactured in the same Chinese factories as mass market items to increase margins, certainly adds another layer to this story. Many luxury brands consider counterfeiting a form of viral marketing," said Jatyri.


One homegrown luxury brand that has felt the impact of counterfeit goods is the UK's Cambridge Satchel Company. Founder Julie Dean set up her iconic bag business with just £600, and now her goods are sold all over the world.

"The Cambridge Satchel Company goes to great lengths to keep all its manufacturing in the UK, to keep their bags affordable and to fight counterfeiting and brand confusion which errods businesses and support unethical practices," she told HuffPost UK.

The Cambridge Satchel Company

"The film industry has attacked piracy with intention- it's time that fashion does the same."

The rise in websites claiming to offer "discount" or "cheap" luxe goods has been one of the key drivers behind the fakes market; groups such as Mark Monitor, an online brand protection firm are leading the fight back to prohibit companies producing counterfeits, infringing copyright and cybersquatting on lucrative domain names.

Since MarkMonitor began working with Cambridge Satchel, the company has detected and carried out enforcement for more than 1,000 counterfeit product listings on exchange sites, with some listings advertising the availability of thousands of units.

The brand protection programme has detected 29 e-commerce sites selling counterfeits and 76 sites cybersquatting on the Cambridge Satchel's brand by using the brand in the domain name.

Counterfeit Hermès Birkin

Sarah Bush, UK marketing director at Vestiaire Collective said while some people are complacent about buying ‘fake fashion’, consumers should care that the items don't match the real thing in terms of quality and craftsmanship.

"With a designer item you are investing in something which will look great and last for years to come," she said.

"Instead of buying fake items, we encourage anyone who is set on picking up a designer item to buy authenticated pre-owned fashion. Pre-owned is an affordable way to experience real luxury items, and you can even resell items at a later date.”

How to spot a fake - via HuffingtonPost

Vestiaire Collective's counterfeit spotting team supplied HuffPost UK with their top tips for spotting fakes:

• Only look at reputable websites. Shop at recognisable sites - all of your well-known favourites - for straight discounts. Don't be tempted to shop sites you are unfamiliar with, especially those with 'discount' or 'cheap' in the URL.
• Familiarise yourself with your favourite brands. Don't be shy to check out items at a brand's shop or concession in a department store. Inspect the item carefully and you'll have better instincts as to what may not be right with a product.
• Look at the hardware. On items such as handbags, the zipper should move smoothly and the pull should be heavy in feel. All other hardware should be similarly heavy and not hollow. There shouldn't be any discolouring or signs of the metal flaking off.
• Check the handles and look inside. The stitching should be in a straight line and the thread should be strong and not frayed or pulled. The leather should be smooth and match the bag in the way it does on the product you saw in the store. The same is true inside; if the fabric looks strange or exceedingly cheap, it's likely a fake.
• Logo. If the logo on a handbag, shoe or garment is upside down, sideways, cut off or somehow not right, again, you are likely looking at a fraudulent product.

Content credit: HuffingtonPost Uk
Pic credit: Delortae Agency

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