Special note to Eric Schmidt over at Google: This palette could prove handy the next time Steve Jobs' lawyers try to give you a (virtual) black eye. Via Engadget.
Introduction ~ FAQs ~ Contact ~ About Me
Special note to Eric Schmidt over at Google: This palette could prove handy the next time Steve Jobs' lawyers try to give you a (virtual) black eye.
Meanwhile, let's hope that both stylish students of literature have taken into account any lingering rights of the authors and original cover designers. Otherwise, attorneys for the various parties may be tempted to use the "books" as clubs. 


This case is a particularly interesting test of the growing trade dress trendlet, given the prominent appearance of each party's trademark along with the claimed trade dress. The Ed Hardy tattoo-style fish print further complicates a demonstration of likelihood of consumer confusion with respect to who created each tote. On the other hand, Marc has sold thousands of his bags and seen them included in numerous editorial layouts -- and, short of a design patent, a trade dress claim is the only opportunity under U.S. law to potentially prevent a competitor from taking a widely recognized design, slapping on an extra element or two, and selling it as his own.
For the online discount retailer Gilt Groupe, it's a Monday.

Lee Eisenberg is. And now the former Esquire editor-in-chief and Land's End creative director has written a new book, Shoptimism, to explore how we're sold products, why we buy them, and ultimately -- in the words of the subtitle -- Why the American Consumer Will Keep on Buying No Matter What.
...or is there? It's not quite the Louis Vuitton toile, and the initials are "JN" rather than "LV." In the context of the video, it's just the sort of obvious fake that the comically less-than-appealing guy who's not Colbie's type -- but whom she's falling for anyway -- might own. 
While the First Lady made her displeasure with Ty's "Sweet Sasha" and "Marvelous Malia" dolls known, it's unclear whether she'll object to seeing her own image in plastic -- or whether it would be good politics to attempt to decapitate the dolls with a right of publicity claim. (Yes, she's a public figure and the First Amendment protects speech; no, these dolls don't seem to constitute commentary of any sort.) Suffice it to say that the action figures were not authorized, but that overt legal action is not terribly likely.Alexander McQueen may have incorporated his signature skull motif into this fall's "Faithful" motorcycle jacket bootie (below left), but it wasn't enough to scare away a true pirate. Steve Madden copies creative shoe designers so frequently and so, well, faithfully that it's often quicker to identify the few changes than to catalog all of the similarities. In this case of the Seryna bootie (below right), only the substitution of a plain zipper pull and a few minor details of construction (quality of materials, sharpness of the foldover points) give away the game.
The real difference this time around, however, is that the knocked-off designer hasn't accepted being K.O.'d -- and the next round will take place in federal court.

But wait, you say, U.S. law doesn't protect clothing designs against copying. Hence Steve Madden's apparent business strategy: copy everything from sole to shoelace, but avoid the legally secured trademark.
While the complaint isn't yet available online, lawyers for Alexander McQueen are part of an emerging trendlet, namely a return to trade dress claims. Ever since the Supreme Court severely limited the availability of trade dress protection for product configurations almost a decade ago, such claims have been few and far between -- and as a practical matter limited to famous, classic designs or design elements that have been around for years. The secondary meaning requirement hasn't disappeared, but determined attorneys representing clients from Louis Vuitton (against Dooney & Bourke) to Trovata (against Forever 21) have been working to reinvigorate this particular avenue of intellectual property protection. Success has been limited thus far, but legal reasoning springs eternal.
For Alexander McQueen, this means noting that Faithful devotees have included Lindsay Lohan, Mary-Kate Olsen, Rihanna, and the photographers who fall at their feet. Surely, the argument goes, such extensive editoral notice has established a link in the public mind between design and designer sufficient to qualify for trade dress protection. Time -- and the Southern District of New York -- will tell.
From a big picture perspective, if this trickle of trade dress claims continues, will it have a significant effect on the frequent copying of creative clothing?
Yes and no. Established, well-known labels with large marketing budgets and/or celebrity clients -- in other words, those who could demonstrate that some of their most popular designs have secondary meaning -- would have more protection than they do now. Of course, those are also the labels least in need of additional protection, as many customers already seek out their (legally protected) trademarks. While counterfeiters of those trademarks abound, there is at least law on the books against such activity. Emerging designers, by contrast, are less likely to have their still-obscure trademarks counterfeited than to have their designs copied. And since emerging designers are relatively unknown and their designs are unfamiliar to the public, they are far less likely to qualify for trade dress protection and would suffer by comparison.
Whatever the strength of the trade dress trendlet, it will be quite a few seasons before its full impact becomes apparent. In the meantime, Alexander McQueen will simply have to hope that his clients keep the faith.
Via WWD.
Of course, the corporate baristi behind the Starbucks Via Ready Brew are well aware that you can't be held liable for copying a mere idea. Even a bad one. 