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

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

Delortae Agency Luxury App | The Company

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

Gucci loses GG trademark in the UK

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

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

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

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

Connelly logo left, Gucci logo right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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