Italian police seize £40m Bvlgari assets

Italian police have seized €46m worth of Bvlgari assets, including the jeweller’s flagship Roman store, in a tax evasion probe.

Police said their investigations focused on Paolo and Nicola Bvlgari, grandsons of the founder of the jeweller,

Italian Police seized assets worth €46m (£40m) from the upmarket jeweller Bvlgari today in a tax evasion inquiry.

The investigation centres on Paolo and Nicola Bvlgari, sons of the founder of the brand, and Francesco Trapani, the brothers’ nephew and chief executive of the group, as well as their lawyer Maurizio Valentini.

The men are accused of making “fraudulent declarations” in relation to €3bn worth of revenues.

Nicola Bulgari

The police allege the four men made “fraudulent declarations” related to €3bn worth of revenues from 2006 to 2011, before LVMH bought Bvlgari for €3.7bn. The focus of their investigations is the use of holding companies in the Netherlands and Ireland through which the group funnelled revenues, according to the police. No arrests have been made.

A statement from the Bvlgari holding company said it was “extremely surprised” by the allegations. “Bvlgari will take all the necessary steps to clarify its position,” it added.

“The investigations have brought to light a true ‘escape strategy’ to avoid Italian taxes and in particular tougher rules that were introduced from January 1 2006 related to the taxation of dividends,” the police said in a statement.

Bulgari is not the first luxury goods group to come into the sights of the Italian tax police.
Italian police in November confiscated €65m of assets, including a 15th century castle, from the Marzotto family and its business associates over suspected tax evasion connected to the 2007 sale of the Valentino luxury brand.

The Bvlgari family members sold their controlling stake in the Roman house to LVMH in March 2011 in an all-share deal.

LVMH’s offer put about a 60 per cent premium on the company making the deal, which was 10 years in the making, one of the sector’s most expensive.

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

Guess Wins Trademark Suit in Italy

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

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

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

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

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

Gucci bottom and Guess above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man tried on Cartier watch and ran out the door with it

CARTIER were the un willing victims of a daring theft on Saturday 30 March 2013.

It appears a man tried on a pricey watch at a Midtown luxury store — then ran out the door with it, police said.

The suspect, captured on surveillance camera, entered the Tourneau Watch Store on 57th Street near Madison Avenue about 2:50 p.m., the police said.

He asked to see Cartier’s Ballon Bleu model, which is valued at $8,100, and tried it on, according to authorities.

The watch has a sapphire crystal, and its strap is made of pink gold and steel.

Cartier’s Ballon Bleu

The sticky-fingered shopper then took off — running east on 56th Street towards Park Avenue.

Police are asking anyone with information about the heist to call Crime Stoppers’ hotline at 1.800.577.TIPS, or to send tips via the Crime Stoppers' Web site.

Content thanks: Rebecca Harshbarger

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

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

Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana

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

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

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

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

Bassil A. Hamideh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available.

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

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

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

Dolce & Gabbana fined 344 million euros by Italian Fiscal Authorities

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

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

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

Stefano Gabbana, Lionel Messi & Domenico Dolce

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

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

Pic credit: Dolce and Gabbana

Under Armour sues Nike for trademark infringement

UNDER ARMOUR New York — Under Armour Inc. wants to protect its “I will” catchphrase.

The athletic clothing maker, based in Baltimore, has filed a trademark infringement suit against Nike Inc., claiming its rival has inappropriately used variations of the phrase in its marketing.

Under Armour says that since late last year, Nike, based in Portland, Oregon, has launched an advertising campaign using phrases like “I will protect my home court,” and “I will finish what I started.”

Under Amour says such use of “I will” is “likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception.” Under Amour said that it has been using its “I will” phrase on hundreds of products, packaging and various types of marketing since as early as 1998.

In an email response to The Associated Press, Nike spokeswoman Mary Remuzzi declined to comment at this time, saying the company just learned of the lawsuit.

According to the documents, Under Armour is requesting a permanent injunction to bar Nike from using the “I will” phrase. It is also wants Nike to destroy all products, packaging and signs that use the tagline. It also wants Nike to pay Under Armour all profits arising from the use of the phrase, and is seeking to recoup damages.

The suit was filed Thursday 21/02/13 in federal court in Baltimore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterfeit Louis Vuitton

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

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

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

Are fast fashion and mass manufacturing to blame?

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

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

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

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

Counterfeit Hermès Birkin

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


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

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

The Cambridge Satchel Company

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

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

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

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

Counterfeit Hermès Birkin

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

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

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

How to spot a fake - via HuffingtonPost

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

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

Content credit: HuffingtonPost Uk
Pic credit: Delortae Agency

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