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

Coca-Cola Trademark Battle to Trademark ‘Zero’ Continues

Coca-Cola

COCA-COLA has been trying to trademark the word “zero” for the best part of 13 years and last month, Canada rejected Coca-Cola Company’s attempt to trademark the rights to the common English word for its diet drink brands—including Coca-Cola Zero, Sprite Zero and Powerade Zero.  The major brand leader will reportedly get the news on whether it has won or not later this year.

If Coca-Cola is given the rights, it can then sue imitators that have used the word, the Wall Street Journal reports. The first rival Coke would likely go after is Dr Pepper’s Diet Rite Pure Zero.

Losing the case, however, would allow other companies to start using “zero” in their product names.

You may remember, the battle for “zero” started when Dr Pepper challenged Coke’s trademark application, noting that there were then 32 other beverages not owned by Coke that used the term “zero,” such as Monster Energy Zero Ultra, Virgil’s Zero and Arnold Palmer Zero, Fortune reports. PepsiCo also got in on the fight, and UK and Canadian regulators ruled against Coca-Cola. 

Now it is America’s turn.

Coca-Cola main argument, appears to centre around the fact that “zero” is associated with its company because of “extensive advertising, promotion and sales.” Coke would love to have the rights to help push its Coke Zero more aggressively. In its latest earnings report issued Tuesday, the company reported a growth of 6 percent for Coke Zero across the globe while Diet Coke and Coke Light dropped by 6 percent.

The outcome may well set a legal trademark precedent no doubt for future disputes, will keep you posted.

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

RELATED ARTICLES

» Burberry Sues JCPenney Over Check Pattern

» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba

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.

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

Bank of China Complies With Subpoena In Gucci Counterfeit Case

Gucci Runway AW09

> U.S. judge found bank in contempt, fined it $50,000 a day
> Gucci sought bank records of counterfeiters in China

Bank of China Ltd. turned over records in a case brought by Gucci America Inc. after a U.S. judge fined it $50,000 a day for not complying with subpoenas seeking information about Chinese makers of counterfeit luxury goods reports Bloomberg.

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in New York found the Beijing-based bank in contempt in November for disobeying orders to turn over account information Gucci wanted to help it trace and recover money from the sale of counterfeits. Bank of China claimed Sullivan lacked the authority to order it to produce evidence and said doing so would force it to violate China’s banking laws.

Sullivan’s order cited the bank’s “refusal to comply with U.S. law, while it continues to receive the benefits attendant to its banking activity in the United States.” He said the bank was “flouting” his orders.

"By making today’s document production, BOC has complied with the court’s orders and believes it has purged its contempt," David Esseks, a lawyer for the bank, said in a letter to Sullivan on Wednesday. Esseks said Bank of China believes the document production means it is no longer liable for the daily sanction.

Bank of China, which is controlled by the Chinese government, is one of the biggest banks in the world, with global assets of about $2.5 trillion, $65 billion of which are held by five branches in the U.S.

Brett Philbin, the bank’s spokesman at public relations firm Edelman, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday’s letter. Floriane Geroudet, a spokeswoman for Gucci’s Paris-based parent, Kering SA, didn’t immediately return an e-mail after business hours there.

The case is Gucci America Inc. v. Weixing Li, 10-cv-04974, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).



✿ » 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
» YSL Settles Ain't Laurent Lawsuit
» Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Chanel And "parody" Streetwear Brand in Trademark Suit
» Chanel Brand Sues Entrepreneur in Trademark Violation

YSL Settles Ain't Laurent Lawsuit

YVES SAINT LAURENT has settled its lawsuit against parody T-shirt company What About Yves. The French house took exception to the production of merchandise bearing the words "Ain't Laurent Without Yves" in reaction to creative director Hedi Slimane's decision to rebrand the company without the founder's forename, asserting that the items were guilty of "trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition".

What About Yves. You may recall that YSL filed suit against the company and its founder, Jeanine Heller, this past April for manufacturing and selling t-shirts and sweatshirts that read, Ain’t Laurent Without Yves. The Paris-based company, which dropped the “Yves” from the name of its revamped ready-to-wear collection in 2012 when creative director Hedi Slimane came on board, alleged claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

Things got interesting when after YSL sent Heller a number of letters alerting her of such intellectual property charges. According to YSL’s complaint, which was filed in the Southern District of New York court, after a number of letters that YSL sent Heller on the matter went unanswered, Heller finally reached out to the design house's counsel, denied any wrongdoing, and offered to sell her Ain't Laurent Without Yves trademark to them. (Yes, Heller filed to federally register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office but was ultimately rejected due to its similarity to a number of existing trademarks belonging to YSL). All the while, Heller continued to sell the allegedly infringing t-shirts to retailers including famed Paris boutique, Colette, with which YSL ultimately cut ties as a result of its stocking of the t-shirt.

After settling a similar lawsuit with Chanel this past year (even though the shirts at issue

in that case are still available for sale on the What About Yves website), Heller settled the case with YSL earlier this month. According to the docket for the Southern District of New York court, the case was voluntarily dismissed on January 12th, and while it appears that Heller agreed to remove the YSL tees, there is no word on what the monetary component of the settlement is as reported by The Fashion Law.


YSL has been bombarded with complaints from dissatisfied fans after unveiling the new Saint Laurent Paris logo on Facebook earlier this week. The brand shared a photo of a box bearing the new logo on their official page - which, despite receiving almost 3,000 Likes so far, has attracted a slew of negative comments.

"Hard to believe such a poor decision has been made, which can only damage the brand," says Chris Dickman, while Molly McGlew adds: "This is so boring and genuinely disappointing."

"Go back to the old logo, the new one lacks imagination," comments Adi Elias. "I'm not a fan of the new logo, but I can see what the brand was aiming for," adds  Lucy Geremin. "But I really do think the Yves or Y was quite important and iconic. The new logo doesn't represent the same brand to me."

But not everyone shares the same view: "What Hedi proposes is both new and old, looking forward but with respect for the old," comments Nick Byrne. "YSL and the full name in the same script were only used for Haute Couture. The ready-to-wear used the same typeface which Hedi has proposed."


"Very fresh, modern, contemporary... of the moment," adds Ian Edwards. "It speaks of an austere, inconspicuous, but highly elegant luxury."

Heller has had a busy year in litigation, after Chanel took issue with a double C-printed T-shirt that she was selling - a case that was also settled out of court. She currently still retails the double C print - along with parodies of the Dior, Hermès and LVMH logos - so it's unlikely that this is the last time we'll hear her name in connection with trademark-infringement accusations.

The settlement comes at a time when the fashion industry is debating the future of Yves Saint Laurent creative director Slimane, despite repeated assertions by the brand that he is going nowhere. The designer is said to have personally objected to the What About Yves pieces so strongly that he chose to withdraw the entire Saint Laurent collection from Parisian boutique Colette in 2013, simply because it also carried the parody sweaters.



✿ » 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
» Chanel And "parody" Streetwear Brand in Trademark Suit
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba
» Chanel Brand Sues Entrepreneur in Trademark Violation

Taylor Swift Settles "Lucky 13" Lawsuit, Avoiding Trial

Taylor Swift

The singer strikes a deal to end the trademark dispute right as she was scheduled to submit to a deposition reports The Hollywood Reporter.

Taylor Swift has put to end to an uncomfortable legal difficulty with a confidential settlement executed with Blue Sphere, an Orange County-based clothing company that accused the singer of infringing its "Lucky 13" trademarks.

The lawsuit against Swift was filed in May 2014 as Delortae Agency reported here Taylor Swift Sued by Lucky 13 Apparel Company for Trademark Infringement, after she allegedly began marketing clothing bearing the "Lucky 13" phrase and made a partnership with a greeting card company conducting a "Lucky 13" sweepstakes.

In recent months, the litigation had evolved from a ho-hum trademark case into one that delved into many aspects of Swift's business acumen and had the prospect of becoming embarrassing ahead of a trial that was scheduled for January.

In particular, Blue Sphere and Swift went several rounds over whether she'd have to submit to a deposition. Swift claimed "harassment" as well as a busy tour schedule with the plaintiff investigating endorsement deals and serving subpoenas on Elizabeth Arden, Coca-Cola Company, Proctor & Gamble, Toyota Motor Sales and Papa John's, among others.

Her agents at William Morris Endeavor handed over its documents pertaining to Swift while attorneys for Blue Sphere continued to hunt for such items like all photographs and videos of Swift in which her buttocks or breasts were at least partially visible. The effort was made in part to figure out how products were being named, what other products might have been contemplated, and whether there were searches of trademark records in conjunction with all this. Additionally, Blue Sphere looked to investigate Swift's control over her brand and understanding of marketing channels.

In August, a judge cleared the way for a deposition, though the two sides continued to fight over timing.

Those looking for a better understanding of why Swift filed registrations on such marks as "this sick beat" or how hands-on she has been in her business won't learn anything more in the case. On Friday, the parties told a judge of the settlement agreement resolving all claims. 

Swift was represented by J. Douglas Baldridge at Venable while Blue Sphere was handled by Gary Rinkerman at Drinker Biddle & Reath.

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


RELATED ARTICLES
» Taylor Swift Sued by Lucky 13 Apparel Company for Trademark Infringement 
» Stella McCartney sues Steve Madden Over Handbag Rip Off
» Skechers Sues Steve Madden For 'Go Walk' Patent Infringement 

Steve Madden Settles TCPA Violations for $10 Million

Steve Madden footwear pic Nordstrom

STEVE MADDEN in trouble again, this time for violating the consumer. The publicly traded shoe designer has been no stranger to lawsuits in the past but this one is slightly different. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) provides for, among other things, statutory damages to individuals who receive unsolicited text messages to personal mobile phones – unless the messages are sent for emergency purposes or the recipient has given his or her express consent to receive such messages.  Companies that hire third parties to advertise on their behalf can also be held “vicariously liable” for the acts of those third party advertisers and predicted that many class action suits will arise in the future. 

Last week proved those predictions to be true and provided a real life example of the TCPA’s authority to hold hiring companies liable for the acts of their third party advertisers. posted kleinmoynihan.com

Steve Madden Shoe Company Class Action Lawsuit

Steve Madden, Ltd. (“Steve Madden”), an international shoe retailer, was accused of sending more than 200,000 text messages to consumers through one of its third party advertisers.  The company presented two defenses to these accusations:

1. That consumers had implicitly consented to receive text message solicitations by providing their cell phone numbers while visiting Steve Madden stores; and alternatively
2. That a third party advertiser sent the text messages and should be responsible, not Steve Madden.

Those who have been following this blog should know that neither of these defenses is viable.  First, under the TCPA, consumers must provide express and unambiguous consent to receive unsolicited text messages for commercial purposes.  A customer that verbally provides his or her mobile phone number at a point-of-sale retail outlet without being expressly told how that number will be used, has not provided “consent” under TCPA requirements.  Beginning October 16, 2013, a heightened standard will be imposed under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent to send autodialed and/or pre-recorded text messages to cell phones for marketing purposes.  Limited exceptions will apply to this requirement, such as calls/texts from the consumer’s cellular carrier, debt collectors, informational notices and healthcare-related calls.  If a dispute concerning consent arises, the advertiser bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that a clear and conspicuous disclosure was provided and that the consumer unambiguously consented to receive text messages and/or telemarketing calls to the number provided.

Second, in a Declaratory Ruling issued on May 9, 2013 the FCC ruled that a seller who does not “initiate” calls/text messages as contemplated under the TCPA can nevertheless be held liable where there is an “agency relationship” with its third party advertisers.  Some of the factors that the FCC cited in determining whether an agency relationship exists include the following, as restated here:

• Evidence that the seller allows the outside sales entity access to information and systems that normally would be within the seller’s exclusive control, including access to detailed information regarding the nature of seller’s customer information, e.g. cell phone numbers provided at the seller’s store;
• Evidence that the outside sales entity has the ability to enter consumer information into the seller’s sales or customer systems, as well as the authority to use the seller’s trade name, trademark and service mark;
• Evidence that the seller approved, wrote or reviewed the outside entity’s telemarketing scripts; and
• Evidence that seller knew (or reasonably should have known) that the third party advertiser was violating the TCPA on the seller’s behalf and the seller failed to take effective steps within its power to force the advertiser to cease that conduct.
• In the case of Steve Madden, we would assume that a majority of these factors were satisfied.

TCPA Penalties

The TCPA provides for either actual damages or statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per unsolicited message.  Considering that text message marketing campaigns often yield thousands, and in this case hundreds of thousands, of text messages, potential damages under the TCPA may escalate very quickly, as evidenced by the fact that Steve Madden was willing to settle the case against it for $10 million dollars.

Should it opt to engage in this method of marketing in the future, as part of the settlement agreement, Steve Madden also agreed to obtain consumers’ express consent, in writing, to receiving marketing text messages.  The company must retain that proof of compliance for four years and require its third party advertisers to abide by these terms.

For a brief description of how to handle a situation in which a TCPA action is brought against you, please see our post entitled, How to Defend a TCPA Lawsuit.

The settlement of Steve Madden’s case should be of interest to text message marketers and those generally interested in the Internet and mobile marketing spaces. If you are interested in learning more about this topic or pursuing a text message-based advertising campaign, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney.  Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

KMT certainly put forwarded the case clearly (thank you) but what does this action mean for advertisers?


✿ » 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
» Stella McCartney sues Steve Madden Over Handbag Rip Off
» Taylor Swift Settles "Lucky 13" Lawsuit, Avoiding Trial 
» Skechers Sues Steve Madden For 'Go Walk' Patent Infringement

Chanel And "parody" Streetwear Brand in Trademark Suit

Parody Street Wear

CHANEL is unimpressed with a T-shirt depicting its famous double C logo as the Ghostbusters sign, so much so that it is taking legal action against the garment's makers. Jeanine Heller, the founder of "parody" streetwear brand






What About Yves - made famous for its "Aint Laurent Without Yves" merchandise - has been served with a trademark infringement suit by Chanel.

Filed last week in New York, the suit asserts that Heller is "displaying, offering for sale, and selling on her website, and selling to third-party retailers, a T-shirt and a sweatshirt bearing Chanel's CC monogram mark with an image of an animated ghost commonly associated with the motion picture Ghostbusters," The Fashion Law reports.

The company says that, far from "transforming the mark", which is a standard defence for parody products, Heller is using the "clearly recognisable CC monogram mark [on] her own clothing precisely because of the iconic status of the mark, with knowledge of its association with Chanel, in order to call to mind Chanel".

Heller's brand made fashion headlines last year when it was found to be at the root of a disagreement between Saint Laurent and Parisian boutique Colette. Heller's "Aint Laurent" merchandise - which passed comment on creative director Hedi Slimane's decision to drop the word Yves from the brand's logo - was stocked by Colette, leading Slimane to pull his Saint Laurent collection in its entirety from the store.

The website, which is still offering the "Official Chanel X Ghostbusters" designs for sale, also stocks products which parody or infringe (depending on your point of view) the famous logos of brands including Hermès, Louis Vuitton and Dior. Whether any of these brands will take legal action remains to be seen, but Chanel is seeking damages that amount to up to "three times the amount of actual damages sustained" reported Vogue 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
» Gap back in New Dehli Court with Green The Gap Trademark Battle
» Two New Delhi Firms In Battle with GAP In Trademark Lawsuit
» Chanel Brand Sues Entrepreneur in Trademark Violation

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

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

Taylor Swift Sued by Lucky 13 Apparel Company for Trademark Infringement

Taylor Swift

E! News has exclusively learned that the Grammy winner is being sued by Orange County-based apparel company Lucky 13.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed early Tuesday morning, the clothing brand is accusing T.Swift of trademark infringement stemming from her unauthorised use of Lucky 13's federally registered trademarks.

The company, which was founded in 1991 and specialises in street wear, claims that they have contacted Swift's camp numerous times but there was no resolution.

The "I Knew You Were Trouble" songstress has made no secret of the fact that the

Lucky 13

superstitious number plays a big role in her life.

Not only is her birthday Dec. 13, but her Twitter handle includes the number as well.

She's also been spotted onstage with the number drawn on her hand during her many sold-out concerts.

"The significance of the number 13 on my hand…I paint this on my hand before every show because 13 is my lucky number—for a lot of reasons," she once explained to MTV News. "It's really weird."

"I was born on the 13th. I turned 13 on Friday the 13th. My first album went gold in 13 weeks. My first No. 1 song had a 13-second intro. Every time I've won an award I've been seated in either the 13th seat, the 13th row, the 13th section or row M, which is the 13th letter."

She added, "Basically whenever a 13 comes up in my life, it's a good thing."

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

RELATED ARTICLES

» Skechers Sues Steve Madden For 'Go Walk' Patent Infringement

» Target’s Mossimo Messenger knockoff Proenza Schouler PS1 bag?

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