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

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