Taylor Alison Swift, world renowned country music and pop sensation, is no stranger to the world of intellectual property. In recent years she has been sued for Trademark Infringement of Her Brand Lucky 13, she has created, and obtained, copyrights in chart topping albums, and pulled her music off media streaming giant Spotify. Taylor is at it again. She has recently filed for trademark rights of her works “This Sick Beat”, “Party Like It’s 1989”, amongst others. Taylor has not been granted any of these trademarks, as of yet, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Copyright exists the moment something is put in a tangible form. It is an exclusive legal right, a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States for “original works of authorship”, including literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and audiovisual creations. The length of time that a work is protected by copyright for a work first published after January 1, 1978, is the life of the author plus 70 years.
The ongoing battle for supremacy between Nike and Adidas has recently reached a new level. Last week, Nike initiated a suit against three former designers who decided to leave Nike for their competitor Adidas. The suit ask for upwards of $10 million in damages.
Originally posted 2014-01-02 02:57:28. By Sindy Wenjin Ding | amdlawgroup.com As the fashion industry has grown enormously in size and scope, a growing group of legal practitioners have accumulated insights and legal principles, created a whole new concept: Fashion Law! It undoubtedly preaches gospel to the numerous fashion companies and brands. This article will serve […]
Originally posted 2015-06-08 11:56:44. (By Kelsey Laugel – www.amdlawgroup.com) At the 2015 Billboard Music Awards in May, Nasty Gal, an American-based retailer that specializes in providing more affordable versions of designer clothing, claimed credit for Taylor Swift’s white Balmain jumpsuit. For comparison, the average Balmain jumpsuit can cost anywhere from $2,000 to $6,000 while the […]
Christina Serverino | amdlawgroup.com
Following my post last week regarding the blunders of outlet mall fashion, my curiosity led me to further focus on why (despite being out of style or season) consumers continue to flock in droves to discount retailers such as these, oftentimes in a stint of wanton disregard for the authority of the omnipresent “Fashion Police”. This curiosity led me to a Google search unveiling a patchwork of blog entries and even scholarly articles addressing the societal and scientific impact of consumer behavior and turnover rate of trends. The approaches of the bloggers and scientists seemed contradictory to one another: Bloggers expressed flagrant hostility towards certain trends, while researchers seemed to discredit such convictions, suggesting that the lust for luxury prevails. So what exactly is driving consumers to covet for couture: the product itself or elicited attention of the brand?
By Christina Severino | amdlawgroup.com
The prevalence of counterfeit fashion has increasingly threatened the integrity and presence of luxury brands on a global stage. For every misspelled logo, clumsy stich or questionable cashmere sweater, profits collected from these counterfeits do more than fool the purchaser; they undermine the ingenuity of the original brand and potentially fund other criminal conduct that may go undiscovered.
Lush is a beauty brand that produces products from fresh organic fruit and vegetables. Their products such as makeup, soap, and face wash are not animal tested and are made fresh by hand with little or no preservative. Lush brand chose not to sell their products on Amazon but when customers searched “lush” into the search bar, similar beauty products sold by Lush appeared in the results.
By Ozelle Martin | amdlawgroup.com
Lately, there seems to be a sudden burst in the number of print t-shirt lines that bear designs that are strikingly similar to those of well-known luxury brands such as Chanel, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Givenchy. Undoubtedly, these print t-shirt creators have ventured such a path, in an effort to appeal to the audiences of these very brands to whom they have become parasitic. With ammunition, in the form of potent legal departments, in tow- many of these brands are shooting off cease and desist letters like paintballs. Very often, their claim is that the printed t-shirt creators are infringing upon their marks. In response, the printed t-shirt creators raise their shields and assert that their inspired designs are mere parodies, a defense borrowed from copyright law’s fair use doctrine.
This week, copyright issues received considerable federal attention both in the Ninth Circuit of the US Courts of Appeals on Wednesday and in a hearing by the U.S. House of Representatives’ House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on Thursday. While the court ruled that digital video recorders that automatically
In a year rife with counterfeit lawsuits filed by Tory Burch to protect her famous TT logo, the designer brand is now faced with a suit itself as the defendant, a New York company Lin & J, recently struck back with a countersuit. Lin & J own a wholesale brand called Isis that sells rings, necklaces, and earrings Tory Burch asserts are counterfeits of the brand’s own jewelry. However, Lin & J deny that the Isis jewelry pieces are copies and that similarities are coincidental. In their counterclaim, Lin & J accuse Tory Burch of copying their design instead. Besides trademark infringement, they are suing the fashion brand for unfair trade practices, tortious interference with its business relationships and defamation.
The fashion brand, Bottega Veneta, well-known for its hand bangs and fragrances, had filed its unique “knot” design for trademark registration. Initially, the design was rejected by the USPTO because the knot was a non-distinctive product design and needed a secondary meaning. Bottega Veneta attempted to prove that its knot was distinctive through submitting its sales record, media coverage, high remarks from other fashion industry experts, and a comparison with other famous luxury brand marks.
Tommy Bowe, an Ulster and Irish Lions rugby player, started a new gents brand clothing business called XV Kings Tommy Bowe Designs. He first involved himself in the fashion industry through collaboration with Lloyd & Pryce, a shoe brand.
Italian luxury fashion designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have been caught in a fresh legal bind, this time over their brand’s t-shirts sold by American fashion retailer Nordstrom, also a defendant. The shirts, which were priced at up to $295 apiece, have since been removed from sale on Nordstrom’s website. Actor Peter Fonda is suing for at least $6 million in compensation, claiming that the iconic images of himself in the classic 1969 film, “Easy Rider”, were used without his permission. Movie stills of Fonda on a motorcycle and the movie’s title in its original font are emblazoned on the t-shir
Robin Thicke and co-writers Pharrell Williams and Clifford Harris of this summer’s pop anthem, “Blurred Lines”, filed a lawsuit on August 15 in response to accusations by Marvin Gaye’s family and Bridgepoint Music, Inc. that the hit copies from Gaye’s 1977 single “Got to Give It Up” and Funkadelic’s 1974 song “Sexy Ways”. Bridgepoint Music owns some of the copyright for Funkadelic’s music. The Gayes and Bridgepoint have threatened to sue if the artists do not pay a monetary settlement, so Thicke, Williams and Harris are seeking declaratory relief from a Californian US District Court that would protect their from the defendants’ claims.