ROLEX wins counterfeit case; how to tell a fake

Earlier this month Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. was reported to have won a six-figure sum, along with an injunction, against websites selling counterfeit ROLEX brand watches.

ROLEX brand watch

ROLEX brand watch

BQ Watches has produced the below Guide to buying Rolex watches. The Guide highlights the key factors for determining genuine authenticity for Rolex Watches.

Today there are hundreds of watch makers throughout the world; however there is only a few that have an excellent and trustworthy reputation. Rolex is one of those companies renowned for their superb quality and amazing designs producing fabulous watches designed to last a lifetime. Making the decision to invest in secondhand Rolex watches is a fantastic idea due to the fact that it will enable you to buy a fantastic watch at an affordable price saving you a considerable amount of money. Continue reading

FIT Features Fido Fashion Fete – Awards Abound!

DAWN DEISLER AND VIRGINIA ARMSTRONG-WHYTE WIN AWARDS FOR PET APPAREL DESIGN AT FIT’S FOURTH ANNUAL PET APPAREL AND ACCESSORIES FASHION SHOW

Fashion designers Dawn Deisler and Virginia Armstrong-Whyte won the awards for pet apparel and accessories presented at the Fashion Institute of Technology’s fourth annual pet fashion runway show, BARKinistas Unleashed, held April 18 at FIT in New York City.

BEST OF FASHION SHOW AWARD
Designer:  Dawn Deisler
Model:  Chewee, a leonberger
Photo:  Jennifer Weisbord

Deisler won the Best of Fashion Show Award for an ensemble of a suede leash and matching suede and boa embossed leather patchwork coat and shared the Kmart Salable Style Award with Armstrong-Whyte, who created a two-piece white and gold wedding /special occasion dress. Deisler’s ensemble was a python black and neon chartreuse lambskin carrying bag, leash, collar, and coat. Continue reading

Israeli Law Bans Use of Underweight Models

Israel's top model Bar Refaeli in her latest Agua Bendita shoot. (copyright Splash News/Agua Bendita)

A ban on the use of underweight models in local advertisements and publications has been imposed by Israel via a law passed late last month.  The new law, which will be applied at every photo shoot in Israel that will produce images to be used on the Israeli market, requires each fashion model to produce a recent medical report to prove that they are not malnourished.  The report, which uses World Health Organization standards to determine malnourishment (as explained below), must not be more than ninety (90) days old at the time of the photo shoot.  The law is believed to be the first of its kind in the world.

Additionally, the law requires companies to disclose if image-editing methods such as digital tools were used to make models appear thinner than they actually are.  As defined by an unofficial translation of Law for Restricting Weight in the Modeling Industry, 5772-2012, Israeli Knesset, March 19, 2012, a clarification must be provided and shown in a conspicuous place and in an obvious color and size of the advertisement, if editing was used.  This law will not, however, apply to foreign publications sold in Israel, prompting concern that the law will not have a measurable impact at all – Israeli teens often take their cues from international media in addition to local publications.

The World Health Organization utilizes the body mass index system, where a BMI below 18.5 indicates malnutrition in the UN agency’s scheme.  According to this standard, a woman who is 5 foot 8 inches tall should not weigh less than 119 pounds.  The World Health Organization explains BMI as a simple index of weight-for-height, commonly used to classify underweight, overweight, and obesity in adults. Continue reading

IP Infringement in China – What are my remedies?

Foreign companies, including fashion brands, have significant issues protecting their intellectual property rights (IPR) in China. Today, it is common to find counterfeit cars, shoes, bags, software, restaurants and even retail stores in China. (Like the one below!) Many in the U.S. view China as a black hole for IPR that is only navigable by those with deep pockets, and that even for those the possibility of an equitable remedy is questionable. However, whether one is a major player in the Chinese market, or is just becoming conscious of the need to protect IPR in China, there are some methods of protection available under the current regulatory framework of China.

IPR Regulatory Framework and Acquisitions of Rights. Believe it or not, in terms of the legal regulatory framework established to protect IPR, China’s system is comparable to most developed foreign nations. First, China is a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (for details on its history with WIPO, see this article) and a signatory to the major international IP related conventions, including the World Trade Agreement, thus obligated to follow the  Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Under TRIPS, China agrees to uphold the standards, enforcement procedures and dispute settlement agreements between WTO members. In addition, China has implemented national statutes that govern IPR including Patent Law 1979, Trademark Law 1989, Copyright Law 1992, and Unfair Competition Law 1993. (Most of which have been updated as recently as 2010). It is important to remember that China is a “first to file” system, which means rights are not granted on use without registration. Therefore, foreign companies are afforded the best IPR when they submit an individual English and Chinese-language application for each mark with the corresponding administrative agency, withstand the three-month opposition period, and obtain a registered mark. For example, to register a trademark, the applicant should file with the Chinese Trademark Office (CTO), which is part of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC).
Enforcement of IPR. Once the mark is registered, foreign companies still struggle to protect their marks from infringement despite the variety of enforcement options available. The IPR enforcement actions available to foreign companies in China include: (1) Warning Letters or Cease and Desist Letters, (2) Administrative Actions, (3) Arbitration and Mediation, (4) Civil Litigation, (5) Provisional Remedies, and, (6) Criminal Action. However, each of these enforcement mechanisms has their own set of difficulties. First, while administrative action is preferred to other forms of enforcement because it is viewed as less costly and more orderly than litigation, administrative agencies operate under a statute of limitations of 2 years and have extremely weak penalties.  Second, unknown third-party infringers have the backing of the State, which many discourages foreign IP owners from choosing arbitration or mediation over method with greater discipline. Third, while Chinese courts have the power to order preliminary injunctions or provisional seizures, that power is not frequently exercised; the courts are very conservative with issuing these orders. Finally, litigation, whether civil or criminal, offer longer trials and underutilized punishments, which most commonly include fines.
Problems with IPR Enforcement in China. So, if China has all the proper rules in place to protect IPR and remedies available, why is it so widely believed to be ineffective at enforcing IPR? Well, China does face some unique problems that negatively affect the IPR regulatory framework, such as: (1) Inexperienced judicial system, (2) Under-deterrence of infringing behavior, and, (3) a habit of local protectionism. While improvements are being made, the Chinese judicial system is suffers from a lack of prior case law for IPR, new judges, and a complicated system of remedies that either involves overly harsh criminal punishment that is underutilized or over utilized administrative remedies that are too weak. And overall, one must take into account the tremendous transformation the Chinese economy has undergone and is still undergoing – that from a more pure Communist model, with the State owning everything and few notions of personal property, to a more Capitalist model, which includes individually-owned property, including the ever-elusive concepts of “intellectual property” – concepts which seemingly elude even Westerners who were born and raised with such concepts.

IPR Enforcement in China and IPR. So what does all this mean for the Fashion Industry?     Many major players in the Fashion Industry are still struggling to establish their basic IPR in addition to battling the growing threat of counterfeiting. For example, Hermes has been fighting for over 15 years to register its Chinese-language trademark because a Chinese based fashion outlet, Dafeng Garment Factory registered a trademark, “爱玛仕”, which was dangerously similar to the Chinese name of Hermes, “爱马仕”. Hermes has yet to successfully argue for the cancellation of the similar mark. Thus, in practice, trademark issues are still a major threat to the IPR of the Fashion Industry in China, despite the development and progress of Chinese intellectual property laws. As things stand today, it seems that the best way for the Fashion Industry to protect its IPR is to (1) file early and often, (2) utilize three-dimensional mark protection (Address the three linguistic forms of Chinese language: form, sound and meaning), and, (3) protect your mark across all sectors, not just the ones you are active in.

For more information on Intellectual Property Rights in China, look for the extended article on this topic coming soon by the poster or check out Intellectual Property Law of China, a great book on Chinese IP law edited by Michael Moser.

Navajo Should Aim Higher Than Court Victory

Fashion Law Center Legal Editorial

 

                      Urban Outfitters’ controversial “Navajo Hipster Panty”

In its recent lawsuit against Urban Outfitters for the unauthorized use of the Navajo Nation’s trademarks, the Navajo Nation risks winning a limited or even counter-productive victory.  The underlying issue in this case is too important  (the global exploitation of the intellectual property of indigenous peoples) to be fully resolved in a courtroom.

Urban Outfitters has certainly been guilty of a major public relations gaffe and it seems likely that they have committed trademark infringement and dilution as well, among other things.  However, a court victory by the Navajo Nation will do little to address the broader problem, which is that corporations profitably exploit the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples but then do nothing to compensate or reward those indigenous peoples.

Both Urban Outfitters and the Navajo Nation would be wise to resolve this conflict amicably and with a mutual commitment to productive cooperation, such as in a long-term sponsorship or partnership.  Urban Outfitters, in particular, should consider the downside of continuing on an adversary path and risking a consumer backlash or boycott. Continue reading

Burberry Sues Armenian Coffee House

(This story is based on reporting from the Armenian website http://hetq.am/)

[Ed. Note: As of press time, our reporter has not confirmed any of the following: (i) the jurisdictional authority of the Court hearing the case, (ii) the scope of Burberry's trademarks, and (iii) the precise issues upon which this case turns.  HOWEVER, even without updates on the foregoing, this story illustrates the global nature of the copying a company such as Burberry faces.]

Burberry Ltd., a British luxury design house, has filed a lawsuit against Armenian coffee
house chain, Jazzve Ltd., for trademark infringement according to Hetq Online. Burberry Ltd. is the owner of several trademarks including the Burberry name as well as its distinctive tartan pattern. In February 2011, Burberry registered its marks with the Ministry of Economy’s Intellectual Property Agency in Armenia.

Burberry has claimed that Jazze Coffee has used the Burberry tartan pattern in the décor of its coffee houses without Burbery’s permission. Jazzve’s attorney, Grigor Minasyan, has stated that his client does not believe it has infringed on Burberry’s trademark and are seeking clarification of the trademark from the Intellectual Property Agency.

Burberry allegedly sent a cease and desist letter to Jazzve in November 2011 urging them to stop using their trademark in the Jazzve coffee houses. The design house has now taken the case to the Yerevan Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Court for adjudication.

The Yerevan Kentron and Nork-Marash Administrative Court is a court of general jurisdiction, hearing all criminal and civil cases for Center and Nork-Marash Administrative Districts in Armenia. The court resides in the city of Yerevan. Judge Ruben Nersisyan will hear Burberry’s claim.

Jazzve Coffee house- Komitas str. 16

Jazzve Coffee opened its first location in Yerevan, Armenia in 2003 and has since then gained wide popularity in the Armenia, making it one of the ten most popular brands in the area, according to its website. It has since opened several more coffee shops, 9 in Armenia and 4 in Russia with plans of opening 2 more shops in the near future.

Jazzve’s website even acknowledges its use of the Burberry pattern on its chairs.

“Company’s policy is based on the ideology that says: “non-traditional approach to traditional things”. “Jazzve” coffee houses attract customers with their old-fashioned interior style, original design of menu and waiters’ uniforms. The style is the same for all Jazzve locations, design includes certain elements that can be noticed in all coffee houses: the walls are of light coffee colour, there are coffee corns depicted on walls and ceilings and coffee pots hanging from the ceilings, ball shaped lamps made of paper, which also have coffee corns depicted on them, provide the lighting. The chairs are covered with Burberry pattern fabric and are of the same type in all Jazzve locations. Old newspapers and photos placed under glass on the tables remind visitors of Soviet period. Books and book shelves are also an integral part of interior, here customers may find books of any theme and genre, mainly of soviet period publication. Altogether, interior is decorated in retro style of 70’s and all elements that can be seen in different parts of coffee houses remind of a typical apartment of Soviet period: clocks on the walls, Russian samovars, musical instruments, gramophones, recording discs, etc.”

Jazzve has clearly taken the interior design of their coffee houses very seriously. After looking at the photos on Jazzve’s website it is apparent that their use of the alleged Burberry tartan pattern is not limited to just the chairs but is incorporated into the overall interior design of the shops. Jazzve has used the alleged Burberry tartan pattern on chairs, the bar, table clothes and hanging ceiling features.

Jazzve has become very well known in Russia and Armenia and it has even attempted to expand the brand into the United States by opening a location in Sherman Oaks, CA. The California location has since closed but more locations are set to open in Armenia and Russia.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out since Jazzve does not think it has infringed on Burberry’s trademark and will clearly be reluctant to change the interior of all its coffee houses.

TEEN MODEL Suit Moves Forward Against Urban Outfitters

Re: “TEEN MODEL” versus Urban Outfitters (UO), et al, a case involving, in part, the

Urban Outfitters Image

taking and publishing photographs of the minor, who is a model. (Note: the Plaintiff who is the subject of this article is referred to only as “TEEN MODEL,” as she is identified in the caption of the complaint.)

Urban Outfitters’ Motion to Dismiss TEEN MODEL’s complaint has been rejected by the Hon. George Daniels, Federal District Judge in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.).  Thus, it appears as though the suit against UO will be moving forward, without further delay. Continue reading

Model Sues Over Alleged Unauthorized Use of Her Image

IMG model Yuliana Bondar recently filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against LASplash Cosmetics, alleging, inter alia, that an image of her was featured without her consent in an ad campaign by the company.  (Links to the Complaint and Exhibits are provided at end of this post).

Bondar is a well-known model signed to IMG Models, an agency that has also represented top models Heidi Klum, Gisele Bündchen and Tyra Banks.  She has walked the runway for Anne Klein, BCBG Max Azria, Tracy Reese, Marchesa, and Tory Burch, appeared in high-end catalogs for Bloomingdales, Bergdorf Goodman, and Saks Fifth Avenue, and has been featured in French Vogue, Elle, and Marie Claire.  LASplash Cosmetics designs and manufactures cosmetics, sold in over thirty countries.  The complaint states that LASplash advertises their products in publications Seventeen, Teen, Nylon, In Style, OK, and American Cheerleader – a far cry from the publications Bondar has been featured in.

Bondar’s complaint alleges that New York-based photographer and defendant David Byun contacted Major Models, Bondar’s then agency, to have her appear for a photo shoot at George Brown Studio in New York.  Bondar was never paid for the shoot, nor did she sign a release in connection with it.  She claims that, “neither she nor her management team would have agreed for her to appear as “the face” of LASplash,” based on the high caliber of designers she has worked with in the past.  The complaint further states that the images in the LASplash campaign were used without her permission, authorization, or written release.  Bondar believes that the undisclosed and unauthorized use of her image damaged her career and inhibits her from working with cosmetics campaigns that may require exclusivity in the future.  She is claiming unfair competition under the Trademark Act of 1946 (the Lanham Act), copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976, unfair competition under the common law of the State of New York, and a violation of her rights under sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law.

Bondar’s fear about LASplash’s advertisements negatively affecting the possibility of being offered future cosmetics campaigns does seem to be warranted, as these contracts typically include exclusivity clauses.  Generally, an exclusive agreement clause prevents a party to the contract from entering a similar contract with a third party.  If Bondar is seen as the “face” of LASplash, her ability to obtain a lucrative exclusive contract with another beauty brand could be seriously jeopardized.  She is seeking damages for the “unauthorized use” of her image because she is claiming that the ad is already hurting her career.

The complaint specifically states that these cosmetics campaigns, “are the landmark of a models career and are the most lucrative of all campaigns, as they result in the increased value of a models image.”  New York Magazine’s “What’s the Ultimate Job a Model Can Book These Days?” November story by James Lim supports this argument.  Lim asks some of the most influential players in the modeling world what they believe to be the most desirous opportunities to be, and the overwhelming response was cosmetics contracts.  Chris Gay, the President of Marilyn Agency, answered, “Cosmetics contracts are always considered the crown jewel of a model’s career.”  Top model Coco Rocha said, “Any perfume and cosmetics contract, of course.”  And model Crystal Renn revealed that, “The coveted cosmetics contract is always the Holy Grail.  It also offers the opportunity to work on representing a brand in a higher, more meaningful manner.”

Nearly all models are vying for a cosmetics campaign offer, so a situation like the one that Bondar has found herself in is certainly worrisome.  With LASplash advertisements out there, Yuliana Bondar’s chances of becoming the “face” of another beauty brand – and reaping the benefits of such a contract – are slim.

FashionLawCenter readers who are hungry for all the information they can get, click on both Complaint and on Exhibits.

For another, lighter, look at this story, refer to CosmeticsDesign.com.

Better Hold Your Horses, Urban Outfitters . . . The IACA Provides Significant Protection for Indian Arts and Crafts

Trademark law is only part of the previously-reported case the Navajo have brought against Urban Outfitters.  (For a general view of that complaint, see this site’s earlier posting click here. The Federal Indian[1] Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) (25 U.S.C.A. § 305) is part of the basis for the Complaint that the Navajo Nation filed against the retail apparel holding company Urban Outfitters, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (NAVAJO NATION, et al. v URBAN OUTFITTERS, Inc., et al.; case 1:12-cv-00195, filed 02/28/12).  In addition to violation of the IACA, the Complaint alleges numerous other causes of action, i.e.: 1) Trademark Infringement pursuant to the Lanham Act’s Section 32; 2) Trademark Dilution pursuant to Lanham Act’s Section 43; 3) Unfair Competition pursuant to Lanham Act’s Section 43; 4) Violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.  This post will concern itself with the IACA, as it is the least-widely-known law involved, and thus most needs explanation to the public, including readers of www.fashionlawcenter.com. Continue reading

Louis Vuitton sends a C&D letter to… Penn Law Students?

LVMH pattern (above), before parody; PENN pattern (below), after parody.

 

If you received an invitation to the Penn Intellectual Property Law Group’s annual symposium, which covers Fashion Law this year, you may have felt there was a connection to well-known luxury designer… Louis Vuitton.

(Image source: http://volokh.com and the C&D letter)

The invitation/poster includes a design a parody of the well-known Louis Vuitton pattern put together with © and ™ symbols. In response to the release of the invitation, Louis Vuitton sent a cease and desist letter to the Dean of University of Pennsylvania Law School on February 29, 2012. In it, Louis Vuitton argues the invitation was an “egregious action” that is not only “serious willful infringement” and brand dilution, but also suggests the action is “legal or constitutes ‘fair use’” because it is sanctioned by members of the legal community.

Penn Law School’s Associate General Counsel, Robert Firestone,  has already issued a response to the C&D letter, arguing that the invitation does not infringe on Louis Vuitton’s trademark. In it, Firestone raises several arguments, including: Continue reading

Navajo Nation sues Urban Outfitters for Trademark Infringement, and much more . . .

Navajo Nation Urban Outfitters Pictures

To see the full text of the Complaint, click here: Navajo Nation versus Urban Outfitters

As reported in an Associated Press (AP) story by Felicia Fonseca, this week the Navajo Nation sued Urban Outfitters Inc. months after the Navajo tribe had sent a cease and desist letter to the clothing retailer Urban Outfitters, Inc. demanding it remove the “Navajo” name from its products.

The lawsuit, filed last Tuesday in the United States District Court in the State of New Mexico, alleges infringement of federally registered trademarks, violations of the Federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act, special legislation that gives special protection to its subject matter; this protection is in addition to the protection given by more familiar intellectual property laws, such as those governing Registered Trademarks.

According to records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Navajo Nation and its affiliates have approximately ten (10) already-registered trademarks on the word mark “NAVAJO” name. These Registered Trademarks cover clothing, footwear, online retail sales, household products and textiles. The Navajo Nation has indicated it will strive mightily to protect what it believes are among the Navajo Nation’s most valuable assets – its intellectual property, including the Registered Trademarks in the lawsuit. Continue reading

Friday’s Fashion Law Roundup

 

- Coach, the purveyor of affordable designer accessories bearing its signature logo, suffered a setback this week in its fight against Triumph, an educational service provider that applied to register “COACH” with the USPTO under the international class headings for computer programs and instructional materials on paper in 2004.   On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, upholding the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s determination, concluded that the respective parties’ products were distinct enough that there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers in the commercial context.

An in-depth analysis of the decision can be found on  the Law of Fashion, Charles Colman’s blog.

- The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) hosted a webinar on Tuesday in connection with the implementation of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, a law that will have a significant impact on fashion inventors, particularly handbag and shoe designers.  Led by USPTO Director David Kappos, the webinar was intended to outline proposals for new patent fees, as well as address other issues related to the implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.    A recording of the webcast can be accessed through the USPTO website.

Our own Joe Murphy’s discussion on the underutilization of design patents can be found here.

And on a less related note . . .

- In the wake of the government’s attempt to fight internet piracy with SOPA and the FTC’s antitrust probe into Google’s practice of  tracking users’ data  via their iPhones, the Obama administration unveiled its proposal for a  “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” yesterday, February 23, 2012.  The  new proposal attempts to target commercial appropriation of consumers’ online data by giving consumers more accessible control of online tracking.  The White House press release can be found here.

Model Alliance: The Law Behind the Movement

This past Thursday marked the end of the New York Fashion Week for Fall 2012. However, many fashionistas are still talking about a major trend, and no, it has nothing to do with the clothes. Fashion models are organizing in a movement to establish fair labor standards for models in the U.S. The goal of this post is to cover what people may not be talking about, the law behind the movement.

Model Alliance, headed by model Sara Ziff, is the non-profit organization behind much of the movement. You can check out their website here. The goal of the organization is to raise awareness about the abusive practices models endure in the fashion industry. Ziff describes one difficulty she faced as a young model in and article from The Observer,

“We had to go in one by one. The photographer said he wanted to see me without my shirt on. Then he told me that it was still hard to imagine me for the story so could I take my trousers off. I was standing there in a pair of Mickey Mouse knickers and a sports bra. I didn’t even have breasts yet. ‘We might need to see you without your bra,’ he told me. It was like he was a shark circling me, walking around and around, looking me up and down without saying anything. I did what he told me to. I was just eager to be liked and get the job. I didn’t know any better.” Continue reading