Plus One

Showing posts with label trademark infringement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trademark infringement. Show all posts

Thursday, 11 February 2016

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

Saturday, 16 January 2016

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


Wednesday, 13 January 2016

Luxury Group Kering sues Alibaba for helping Counterfeiters


Makers of expensive bags, clothes and watches are fighting fakery in the courts. But the battle seems to be getting tougher


THE grand golden doors of 500 Pearl Street, in Manhattan, have welcomed such glamorous names as Hermès, Tiffany & Co and Kering, a French conglomerate whose treasures include Gucci and Bottega Veneta. The building is not a posh hotel or department store. It is the federal court for the Southern District of New York, a favoured battleground for the decidedly unglamorous war against counterfeit goods. As reported by the business section of the economist (August 2015)
The court is now the venue for Kering’s suit against Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce giant. Kering alleges that Alibaba helps fakers sell goods on its websites. The French firm is not the only one to be incensed. On July 17th the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) demanded that Alibaba crack down on counterfeits. Alibaba insists it has extensive measures in place to do just that. It is trying to distance itself from counterfeiters, who are also accused by Kering. On August 6th Alibaba plans to argue to the court that it risks being unfairly implicated as a co-conspirator. A bitter trial looks likely.

The fight against copycats has been long and arduous. Kering’s suit is the industry’s most important in a decade—Alibaba has more than 1 billion product listings and aspires to reach consumers around the world. But its sites are hardly the only places shoppers can find copies. Fake sales are proliferating online, with counterfeiters becoming more technologically adept, more difficult to track and harder to pursue in court.
Counterfeit sales are, by definition, difficult to tally. Last year American border officials nabbed copies that, had they been genuine, would have been worth $1.2 billion. Their European Union counterparts seized €768m ($1 billion) of fakes in 2013. But these were surely a fraction of the counterfeits being peddled. Estimates for the total value of fakes sold worldwide each year go as high as $1.8 trillion.

The deluge of fakes includes everything from software and medicine to detergent and car parts. On July 26th, for example, Chinese authorities said police had raided a factory turning out huge quantities of iPhone copies. Nevertheless, watches, bags, clothing, jewellery and perfume make up most of the goods seized at borders (see chart). On July 21st the European Commission reported that lost sales due to fake clothes and accessories amounted to 10% of the industry’s revenue in Europe. This makes luxury firms shudder. They cherish their reputations for quality and exclusivity, explains Antonio Achille of the Boston Consulting Group. Ubiquitous, flimsy copies undermine them.

Economist.com

The problem has grown more complex as the fakery business has moved online. America’s trade representative predicted in April that online sales of pirated goods might exceed those in physical markets, adding glumly: “Enforcement authorities, unfortunately, face difficulties in responding to this trend.” Online, counterfeiters can stay anonymous, reach across borders and constantly launch new websites to evade legal action. Governments have a devilish time tracking fakes sold online and delivered by post, explains Armando Branchini of Altagamma, the trade group for Italian luxury firms. Fakes shipped in bulk, destined to be sold in physical shops, are hard enough for border guards to spot. “But when it’s a matter of millions of parcels, each with a pair of shoes or bag or shirt,” Mr Branchini sighs, “it’s quite impossible to check.”

Since it is so difficult to fight both fake-goods websites and the counterfeiting operations behind them—if you shut one factory, another will crop up nearby—luxury-goods firms are increasingly taking aim at the legitimate firms that facilitate the business of counterfeiters, such as auction websites, internet-domain registries and payment processors. Sometimes brand-owners seek these firms’ co-operation in court. Sometimes they sue them.

This has had mixed success. In 2004 Tiffany claimed that eBay was liable for the counterfeit sales on its site. eBay retorted that it could not prevent every illicit post, though it would work to remove them. Courts agreed. eBay and Google, which has also been the target of lawsuits, have systems to fight dubious sellers and advertisers. Neither, however, is foolproof.

Alibaba and the forty fakers

According to Kering’s lawsuit, Alibaba poses a new challenge. On eBay, a counterfeiter might auction one or two handbags at a time. Kering alleges that one wholesaler on Alibaba required a minimum purchase of 500 fake Gucci watches and claimed it could deliver up to 8m each month. Brand-owners tremble at the spectre of Alibaba’s 8.5m sellers hawking masses of counterfeits both within China and around the world. Kering’s investigators, for example, bought fake Gucci sneakers on Alibaba’s Taobao.com and had them shipped to New York. Kering alleges that Alibaba not only provides a platform for these sales, but encourages them. Kering complains that if you type “replica” in the search bar in Alibaba.com, the site’s algorithm will suggest “wristwatches”.

Alibaba counters that it, too, is a victim of counterfeiters and is working to fight them. The company has more than 2,000 staff devoted to the problem. They pore over dodgy listings flagged up by Alibaba’s algorithms and by brand-owners. In the run-up to its public offering last year, the firm removed 90m listings. Indeed Alibaba has acquired some weighty partners—it has signed agreements with Louis Vuitton, Coach and others to co-operate on fighting counterfeits. But its disputes look likely to heat up. The AAFA wants Alibaba to set up an automated system to take down dubious listings immediately, a demand that is unlikely to be met. The fight with Kering will continue. The two parties have already tried and failed to reach agreement outside court.

Meanwhile sales of counterfeits continue to sprawl across the internet. For example, it is common for Chinese consumers to dodge the high price of luxury goods in their own country by buying them on so-called daigou websites: a shopper might buy a handbag in Europe, then resell it on one of these websites for more than the European retail price but less than the Chinese one. Many products on such sites are genuine. Many are not.

More pervasive are the sites that pose as legitimate sellers of discounted goods. They may have domain names registered in one country, servers in another, payment-processing elsewhere and shipping from yet another place, according to MarkMonitor, which helps companies protect their brands online. Roxanne Elings, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine, says one counterfeit outfit may run as many as 14,000 websites.

Firms have had some success in battling these sites, again by focusing their attention on legitimate companies that serve them. In 2010 Ms Elings helped North Face and Polo Ralph Lauren obtain court orders for domain registries to take down networks of rogue sites, and for PayPal to turn over fakers’ assets. Tory Burch, Hermès and Michael Kors won similar cases in 2011 and 2012.
Since then, however, counterfeiters have become more slippery. Ms Elings says that networks of sites are using multiple registries and myriad fake names. Joseph Gioconda, a lawyer who has represented Hermès, Michael Kors and Lululemon, says that catching up with copycats is daunting when their assets are held outside America. Kering and Tiffany had sought to freeze counterfeiters’ accounts at Chinese banks, but last year an American court refused to do so. That will make it harder to obtain foreign records that might expose counterfeit rings.

The role of consumers in all this is complex. Some are looking for the real thing at discount prices, and are deceived. Others are knowingly hunting for fakes. Both types may regret their penny-pinching. The most troubling recent trend is that online counterfeiters have discovered a new source of revenue. Some of their sites have no goods to sell, real or fake. They are simply out to steal unwitting shoppers’ card details, a business that can enjoy higher margins than any handbag.


Monday, 9 November 2015

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 Infringementafter 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 

Wednesday, 14 October 2015

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


Friday, 9 October 2015

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




Sunday, 2 August 2015

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

Friday, 10 July 2015

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

Monday, 18 May 2015

Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands

Jack Ma Alibaba Founder pic: Bloomberg News
Alibaba's head of internet security Ni Liang makes an impassioned plea for help to stop fakes to Global brands in an exclusive interview today with John Ruwitch, Reuters.

"HANGZHOU, China (Reuters) - When it comes to fighting fakes, Alibaba's head of internet security says cooperation beats the courtroom any day.

Ni Liang, who runs the Hangzhou, China-based company's anti-counterfeiting operations, was speaking to Reuters days after Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent and other luxury brands owned by Paris-based Kering SA sued Alibaba in New York, alleging the e-commerce giant had knowingly made it possible for counterfeiters to sell fakes.

Ni said brands had a better chance of succeeding in clamping down on the pervasive counterfeit trade if they talked to Alibaba, instead of suing it.

The company has been dogged for years by accusations that it doesn't do enough to fight intellectual property rights violations and also listed counterfeits as a risk before its record-breaking $25 billion IPO in September.

"I strongly believe that spending money on lawsuits could result in a completely different outcome than cooperating with us," Ni said in an interview during a rare visit by the media to Alibaba's internet security headquarters.

"If a brand doesn't cooperate with us we'll still fight fakes for them... But when we cooperate we can fight better."

Alibaba employs some 2,000 employees to battle counterfeits. At its internet security command centre, a computer screen covering an entire wall tallies in real-time attempts by vendors to list suspected counterfeits and shows which brands they were trying to sell. Vendors known to have attempted to sell fakes are also tracked.

Another 5,000 "volunteers" around the country, including sellers and buyers, help identify vendors of phony goods, Ni said, adding that Alibaba spent about 100 million yuan ($16 million) last year to covertly buy products and check their authenticity.

Ni said this figure could rise to 150 million this year. "I believe we spend more than any platform or company in the world on anti-counterfeit efforts," he added.

REAL-TIME

Alibaba's two popular platforms are Taobao, on which consumers buy and sell goods to each other much like they do on the marketplace run by U.S.-based eBay Inc , and Tmall, an online shopping mall that vendors use to sell their products, similar to Amazon.com Inc .

The company, founded by Jack Ma, controls 80 percent of all online retail in China, handling goods worth about $97 billion in the quarter ended March 31.

Alibaba has so far signed more than 1,300 memoranda of understanding on cooperation with brands, including Microsoft , Apple and Louis Vuitton , to fight fakes, Ni said.

Overall, Alibaba's platforms have seen a drop in the number of counterfeits as a percentage of goods traded, Ni said, but added the number of fake products discovered by the company rose two-thirds to 130 million last year from 80 million in 2012.

Counterfeit goods can be found on all Chinese e-commerce platforms, despite efforts to fight them, because of the sheer scale of the problem and the huge demand for these products.

No pictures of the internet security war room are allowed. An Alibaba spokeswoman told Reuters they could not name any of the brands being targeted by fraudsters but data on the tracking screen showed more than 5,000 attempted listings of suspected fake products had been detected and removed by noon.

A search for "Gucci" and "Guggi" on Alibaba's eBay-like Taobao site also highlights the complexity of the problem.

Ads appear for products that look like genuine articles as well as clear knock-offs. Ni said determining authenticity from photos is notoriously difficult, and products that bear a likeness to the real deal may not infringe upon intellectual property rights.

Brands and industry groups have complained that Alibaba makes it difficult to remove suspect product listings. Ni said last year his team removed 12 million listings after receiving complaints involving about 20 million, but the process can be lengthy.

About 40 percent of all items flagged were either genuine or it was impossible to conclude that they were fake, he said.

"We have to have an audit mechanism for complaints made by brand holders, and this audit mechanism increases the time it takes to get fake products pulled down," he said, adding that Alibaba intends to double the number of cases it sends to the police for prosecution this year."

(Additional reporting by Jane Lee in SHANGHAI; Editing by Miral Fahmy)

Read the original article on Reuters.


✿ » 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
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Bank of China Complies With Subpoena In Gucci Counterfeit Case
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba


Tuesday, 20 May 2014

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

Wednesday, 4 December 2013

Gucci loses GG trademark in the UK

Follow on Bloglovin



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.

Follow on Bloglovin

Sunday, 20 October 2013

Gucci Awarded 144.2 Million Dollars in Case Against Counterfeit Fake Fashion

Follow on Bloglovin

Counterfeit Gucci dust bag
Gucci America has been awarded 144.2 million dollars in damages in a case against online fake fashion counterfeiters.

Gucci filed the lawsuit against the counterfeiters in May 2013, alleging the abuse of the Gucci name and trademark to sell counterfeit goods online. Amidst the defeat of the luxury brand house shock defeat Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy which was a humiliating defeat at the same time. The luxury house was not about to lose again.

Gucci got out their legal big guns and went to battle pulling no punches successfully showing that the domain names used publicity campaigns very similar to those of the Italian luxury brands, as well as official product images and descriptions to try and coax consumers into purchasing counterfeit goods.

The company’s president and CEO, Patrizio de Marco, stated that “We are extremely pleased that the court clearly understood the dangers to consumers posed by online counterfeiting organisations and has sent a strong message that counterfeiters can expect to receive severe sanctions when caught.”

According to the presiding judge, US District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas, the amount in damages awarded includes the additional amount of interest from the date the lawsuit was filed.
Counterfeit Gucci sneakers advertised on website
As well as successfully proving this the U.S. district court for the Southern District of Florida also ordered ”the immediate surrender to Gucci of 155 domain names used in the counterfeiting operation.”

What does this mean now for the counterfeit market coming on the announcement that Taobao Market Teams up with Louis Vuitton to Remove Counterfeit of the massive Chinese online market place Alibaba e-commerce site. And who can forget Taobao.com signed a similar agreement with Gucci themselves a few years back Taobao Teams Up With Gucci and Apple to Remove Counterfeit Products.

This victory shows the major brands are no longer going to sit back and let counterfeits infringe on trademarks and profits.

For luxury authentic products & 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.

Follow on Bloglovin
Follow Me on Pinterest

eBay defeats Tiffany in counterfeit jewellery suit

Follow on Bloglovin

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

Follow on Bloglovin
Follow Me on Pinterest

Monday, 14 October 2013

Taobao Marketplace Teams up with Louis Vuitton to Combat Counterfeits


TAOBAO MARKETPLACE has taken another step against counterfeit luxury goods by inking an agreement with Louis Vuitton to proactively remove intellectual property rights (IPR) infringing listings on it platform.

This is not the first time China's leading online e-tailer has collaborated with a luxury retailer as March last year they announced a similar deal, Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products.

Alibaba Group, China’s massive e-commerce firm, has announced a partnership with French high fashion label Louis Vuitton that aims to stop the sale of counterfeit luxury goods in China. 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, owned by LVHM Moët Hennessy, is world-famous for its distinctive brown monogram leather merchandise. Due to both their popularity among celebrities and high price tags, the brand’s accessories are a prime target for counterfeiters. The brand have recently launched their upmarket line in order to distinguish themselves and reach a more elitist market.

Earlier this year, Chinese authorities in Guiyang broke up a high-profile counterfeit goods operation that was based in a high-end hotel. Police confiscated more than 6,000 fake items worth more than 81 million yuan ($13 million).

“The store owner admitted his bags cost around 100 to 200 yuan (US$16-$32) but that he sold them for over 1,000 yuan (US$160). The bags were of high quality and most of the buyers could not tell the difference from genuine items,” reported Want China Time. “Most of the goods were counterfeits of luxury brands Louis Vuitton and Gucci.”

Under the agreement with Louis Vuitton, Taobao Marketplace will proactively take down product listings of suspected counterfeit goods and implement preventive measures to stop sellers from listing fake items. These measures strengthen the current system in place whereby brand owners notify Taobao of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringing items and then Taobao acts to remove them from the giant online shopping website.
Alibaba Group online shopping site
The agreement is part of ongoing efforts by Taobao Marketplace to work with brand owners to curtail fakes.  In August, Alibaba Group signed an agreement with world’s largest anti-counterfeiting group, the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (IACC) to work together against pirated goods. The agreement called on IACC members, which include Apple and The Walt Disney Company, to assist Taobao in identifying copyright-infringing products listed on the site. Taobao Marketplace reached a similar agreement last September with the U.S.-based Motion Picture Association (MPA). The website is also working with Chinese government agencies and law enforcement to identify and shut down factories and other sources of counterfeit goods.

The agreement between Louis Vuitton and Taobao Marketplace will go toward building a fairer and more transparent online business environment, the companies said in a joint statement on Friday.

“Such collaboration is invaluable to us, in order to prevent the manufacture, transport and sales of counterfeit goods, online as well as off-line,” said Valérie Sonnier, Global Intellectual Property Director for Louis Vuitton.

Last August, Alibaba signed an agreement with the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC), proving that the e-commerce giant was serious about running a legitimate business.

In 2012, about $1.5 billion worth of counterfeit goods were stopped by European Union customs officials, according to an EU report. Fake watches, bags and clothing made up 46 percent of the value of the intercepted merchandise. China remains the top source for counterfeit items to the EU, said the report published in August.

Although China has taken steps to toughen its anti-piracy initiatives and laws in the face of mounting international criticism, experts say the enforcement of those laws have been mixed and the fluid nature of China’s labour economy means that when one factory closes another opens somewhere else.

Taobao Marketplace, which was removed from the United States Trade Representative list of “notorious markets” for piracy last year, was once a magnet for these counterfeit sellers eager to reach a bigger audience. Taobao’s efforts to clean up its platform has made it harder for counterfeiters to successfully list and sell items, say company officials.

"Taobao Marketplace is dedicated to the protection of intellectual property rights and the fight against counterfeiting, said Ni Liang, Senior Director of Internet Security, Alibaba Group. “We firmly believe that the collaboration between brands, platforms and government agencies will create visible and significant results in the intellectual property enforcement space.

“If Alibaba wants to remain the top dog in China's e-commerce, maintaining credibility with consumers is crucial,” said Duncan Clark, an investment advisory firm chairman who specialises in the Internet and e-commerce, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

Alibaba Group Vice President Brian Li added, “The Internet is not a place that generates piracy problems, but it’s a place that exposes them.”


✿ » 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
» Help Us Fight Fakes, Alibaba's Impassioned Plea to Global Brands
» Luxury Group Kering sues Alibaba for helping Counterfeiters
» Bank of China Complies With Subpoena In Gucci Counterfeit Case
» Taobao Teams Up With Apple, Gucci To Remove Counterfeit Products
» Louis Vuitton Files Suit in Connection with Counterfeit Goods on Alibaba


Follow on Bloglovin