Archive by Author

UPDATE: The Clash of the “G”s is officially over!

26 Apr

Credit: Gucci

After weeks of a rather lengthy battle (and rather amusing hilarity) the trial between Gucci and Guess has finally come to a close. The trial began earlier this month with Gucci claiming $221 million in damages due to nothing short of an alleged trademark infringement “ponzi” scheme on Guess’s part and Guess claiming that Gucci sat on their laurels for the past 7 years and are no longer eligible to claim the infringement. Closing arguments ended last week, but it could be quite some time before the judge issues a decision in the matter. But rest assured, these chatty chicks will keep you updated on any news that comes our way regarding this highly publicized trial.

Our Firm Disclaimer and Firm Information can be found at this link.

Fashion Group Philly Presents “Protecting the Brand” Forum

17 Apr

Planning on heading to Philadelphia this afternoon? Stop on over at the Philadelphia Fashion Groups forum at Davio’s on 17th Street. The forum starts at 5:30 with a networking reception and is followed by a pnael discussion at 6:35pm. The forum features panel members Barbara Kolsun (General Counsel for Stuart Weitzman), Guillermo Jimenes (Professor at FIT), Lisa Lori (Partner at Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg, LLP) and Kirk Widra (Professor at the Art Institute of Philadelphia).

If you are able to make it, please give us chatty chicks an update on what we missed!

To view our Firm Disclaimer, follow this link.

“G” That’s an Awfully Lengthy Legal Battle

12 Apr

In 2009, Paris based Gucci initiated legal action against the Los Angeles based Guess? Inc. brand for selling items in stores and on-line that are “studied imitations of the Gucci trademarks”. The trademarks include a green and red stripe design, a square G, the designer’s name in flowing script and a diamond pattern with repeating interlocking G’s. Gucci has recently taken this battle to a whole new level alleging that Guess? has devised “a massive, complicated scheme to knock off Gucci’s best-known and iconic designs”. Gucci claims that $221 million worth of Guess? products have infringed on Gucci’s designs. The trial began on March 28th and so far there is no end in sight – just juicy legal drama to blog about!

Click here to read the full article via Business Week.

To view our Firm Disclaimer, follow this link.

New Certainty in an Area of Uncertainty

3 Apr

On November 22, 2006, Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. sued the defendants, Ly USA, Inc., CoCo USA Inc., Marco Leather Goods Ltd., Chong Lam and Joyce Chan in the United Stated District Court in the Southern District of New York for importing and selling counterfeit luxury goods bearing infringing versions of Louis Vuitton’s trademarks. Vuitton asserted various trademark claims under Sections 32 and 43 of the Lanham Act and various state law related claims. Vuitton moved for summary judgement on all claims and the court granted summary judgement on the trademark counterfeiting and infringement claims. After the grant of summary judgement, Vuitton elected to receive statutory damages and additionally sought attorneys’ fees, which lead to the appeal and the question – was Vuitton entitled to the award of attorneys’ fees after electing statutory damages over actual damages? Continue reading

Dolce & Banana?

31 Mar

The luxury fashion brand Dolce & Gabanna has filed suit against a gift shop in Cape Town, South Africa named “Dolce and Banana”. The pair allege that the gift shop “makes a mockery of the well-known trademark” and demanded that the shop change it’s name. Since first being contacted by Dolce & Gabanna six years ago, the owner of the shop has changed its name to “… & Banana”, but Dolce & Gabanna are still on the shop owner’s case for legal fees. Is the pair being too harsh?

The full story can be read on the Huffington Post here.

To view our Firm Disclaimer, follow this link.

After all, interns are people too….

20 Mar

In response to the class action suit now threatening Harper’s Bazaar, Conde Nast has revamped and overhauled their intern program. The group has put in place clearer guidelines for how to treat the coffee fetchers of the office. With such big names making changes, others will likely follow suit. Even if Ms. Wang doesn’t win her class action suit against Harper’s, it looks like there may be a victory in this case after all…

The article via New York Magazine can be found here.

To read the full list of alleged changes to the program, read the article on

To see our Firm Disclaimer, follow this link.

Louis Vuitton versus the Fashion Law Symposium

15 Mar

The University Penn’s Intellectual Property Group is being called out by Louis Vuitton’s lawyers for alleging violating the iconic Louis Vuitton trademark. Ironically, this is one of the very topics that the UPenn group is presenting at their Fashion Law Symposium on March 20th. 

Continue reading

Longer than a Wait-list for a Birkin Bag… Hermes Loses Trademark Battle

6 Mar

Well over ten years in the making, Hermes has been dealt a losing blow in its battle to get the trademark board to cancel a trademark held by a menswear company in China. “Ai-Ma-Shi” as it is known in China, Hermes has been battling the trademark board to cancel a trademark held by a Guangdong garment factory “aimashi”. Hermes has never used the mark on the mainland, but registered for the mark in 1997. A court recently ruled against Hermes saying that Hermes failed to prove that mark was well-known among mainland customers.

Read the full article here.

To see our Firm Disclaimer, follow this link.

Following in the Footsteps of the World’s Fashion Weeks Comes…Fashion Law Week

28 Feb

Howard University in Washington, D.C. is hosting Fashion Law Week this week following the close of the global fashion weeks. With a variety of symposiums being held in this very exciting and emerging area of the law, there is a little something for everyone. Will you be attending?

To see our Firm Disclaimer, follow this link.


Coach Failed to “Purse”-sue Triumph in Trademark Action

28 Feb

In 2004, Triumph Services, a company that prepares software and books to help prepare students and teachers for standardized tests, filed an application for a stylized COACH mark and design. Coach Services, Inc. has used the COACH mark since 1961 and is a designer/manufacturer of handbags, wallets, sunglasses, watches and luggage. CSI owns 16 incontestable registrations for the COACH mark; all but one issued before Triumph’s application for the mark.

Upon Triumph’s registration for its mark, CSI filed suit based on a likelihood of confusion. The action was dismissed. Recently on appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the findings that there was no likelihood of confusion and that CSI failed to show a likelihood of dilution.

A synopsis, and the full opinion, can be found here.

To see our Firm Disclaimer, follow this link.

%d bloggers like this: