Canal Street AF1 | Source: Kicks on fire

The Private Interest in Public Laws
By Kal Raustiala and Chris Sprigman

American law does not prohibit copying fashion designs. Paradoxically, the payoff from free copying has been enormous. Copying helps set trends (you can’t know it’s a trend until it’s been copied) and then helps destroy them – once a design has been widely copied, the fashion-forward hop on to the next new thing. This is the familiar fashion cycle. What’s less obvious is that the absence of copyright makes the process possible. The fashion cycle turns faster, and the industry gets richer – and creates new designs more frequently.

So why on earth would anyone want to change that?

Ask Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). A new bill Schumer introduced would subject fashion to copyright for the first time. The bill would protect only “unique” designs — those that are truly new and distinguishable. And only “substantially identical” copies would be illegal.

As we argued in a recent Op-ed in The New York Times, because there is almost nothing new under the sun in fashion, some designers question whether the proposed law would matter. We agree: if the legislation were strictly applied, it would matter very rarely.

But in the real world, the law will almost surely expand in a way that harms many designers and consumers. Expensive disputes will ensue over what is unique and who got there first. Lawyers (and those designers who could afford them) will be among the biggest beneficiaries. We like lawyers, but we don’t think this is good policy.

Which brings up an interesting question: why would Congress change intellectual property law in a way unlikely to help designers very much, but almost certain to hurt consumers? There are, after all, hundreds of millions of people who buy clothes, compared to a relative few who design them.

Those numbers turn out to be very significant, but in a way opposite to what you might expect. In 1965, economist Mancur Olson published a groundbreaking book – The Logic of Collective Action. Before Olson, most people assumed that in a democracy policy tended to reflect the will of the majority. But Olson showed how in many situations, small, committed minorities prevail.

Why? When a large group favors a policy change, it is expensive to organize that group to seek it. And often each member of a very large group will experience only small individual benefits from the policy – so no member has the incentive to invest in change. Apathy reigns. Conversely, a small group can usually organize cheaply. And because the group is small, each individual member is likely to realize a much larger benefit from the sought-after change. As a result, the small group is properly motivated. In short, the committed minority can often beat the disorganized majority.

That scenario explains how a lot of law is made, and intellectual property law is no exception. The problem is most acute with copyright. Producers of copyrighted works – film studios, record labels, commercial publishing companies – are few in number and stand to gain significantly from more powerful protections (and therefore have ample incentive to spend money seeking policy change). The result is that Congress hears, loudly and often, from those who favor stronger protection. Congress does not hear nearly as often from those who take the opposite view. Who is that? Well, just about every consumer who has to pay more for a book or a song because stronger property rights prevent competition from low-cost copyists that would otherwise exist. We all pay a little hidden tax every time copyright law expands.

Sen. Schumer’s new fashion bill illustrates this collective action dynamic nicely. The impetus for the bill comes almost entirely from the Council of Fashion Designers of American (CFDA). Membership in the CFDA is invitation-only, and is comprised mainly of America’s most notable designers. So the Schumer bill is the brainchild of America’s design elite. An earlier effort to pass a broader bill foundered because the larger and more proletarian American Apparel and Footwear Association refused to go along. This time, however, the two found common ground—and even issued a joint press release touting the merits of the proposed law. In a sense, all Congress is doing is anointing this marriage of convenience between two major industry groups.

Perhaps the most ironic thing about this story is that we’ve seen it all before. During the Great Depression, forces within the fashion industry tried to squelch copying. In the 1930s, that reaction took the form of an illegal private cartel. The “Fashion Originators Guild” brought together retailers and designers (much like the Schumer bill) in an effort to ensure that copies of Guild designs were not sold in Guild-affiliated stores. (Copies from Europe, though, were fair game.) The Guild accomplished this goal for several years, but in 1941 the Supreme Court declared it a restraint of trade and a violation of American antitrust law. The Guild, in short, destroyed competition–and that was illegal.

Frustrated, industry leader Maurice Rentner went to Congress, arguing that the destruction of the Guild and the resurgence of fashion copying would “write finis” to the industry, and asking for a change in the law. Congress ignored him. The result? The American fashion industry hummed along for decades, growing dramatically in size and influence. Occasional efforts to revisit this idea came and went, but none had a serious chance of passing—until now.

What the new Schumer bill does, in a basic sense, is revive the pact at the heart of the 1930s fashion cartel. While the Supreme Court had held that private actors could not squelch competition through cartels, nothing stops Congress from achieving the same end through legislation.

The only puzzle in this story is why it took so long. But as we have argued before, the answer is that copying actually does as much good as harm in the fashion industry—and maybe does more good than harm. Even the CFDA implicitly recognizes this, since the bill doesn’t try to fit fashion into the normal rules of copyright, but instead encourages trend-making and carves out a very narrow and unusual set of rules about copying. Still, some designers win and some lose from copying. Once the losers have convinced a powerful Senator, politics can trump policy—just like small groups can trump large ones.

Source New York Times

Kal Raustiala, a professor at UCLA Law School and the UCLA International Institute, and Chris Sprigman, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School, are experts in counterfeiting and intellectual property. 

Unisex underwear for men? Dev Charney CEO of American Apparel has run wild with risque adverts in an LGBT friendly fashion scene. The problem is that even though AA is one of the most visited clothing websites in America they have lost thier financial grip and in danger of going out of business.   American Apparel has expanded exponentially throughout the past decade, with a loyal customer base that may be “growing” out of the fad I think the cliquish boutique could go bankrupt unless they expand their customer base.

Quick history of how American Apparel has gotten in this mess.

The cost of production for AA is very high. Remember they make almost everything in the USA and pay their employees more than minimum wage. In addition, they have expanded across the globe at a rapid pace. Their advertising costs are astronimical. With all these bills to pay the American Apparel corporation has spending money that they simply do not have…therefore they are desperately in of LOANS, in order to get on their

The current problem  AA press release found here

AA is sinking in debt, and near possible bankruptcy. In order to pay their bills they are looking for more loans, however lenders are not giving it up so easy.  So when you are low on money your internal affairs begin to look sketchy. So sketchy thier own auditor Deloitte and Touche quit because they found MATERIAL weakneses in the internal controls of AA’s financial reporting.  Even though they were able to find a new auditor Marcum, AA still has not released their 2 quarter earnings. Now remember ladies and gentlemen publicly traded companies must inform the public of thier earnings, or the New York Stock Exchange will kick ‘em to the curb.

Fame Appeal advice to American Apparel:

In order for American Apparel to recoup some of their losses they need to appeal to a larger demographic. They have to make their shorts a little bit longer and pant legs a little bit wider.  In other words getting  more customers in the door and actually fitting into their clothes might do the trick. Also, try to find a temporary buyer in the Middle East who can help make American Apparel clothing reflect a more global fashion sense. I know some may argue that AA will be sacrificing its Los Angeles only identity, but I feel that with a few foreign inspired garments a new customer base could emerge.

Jumping out of a taxi, I see one model after another walking towards a tall unnamed brick building.  Am I in the right spot, little did I know that in this weathered commercial space, serious professional activities were taking place.  I interviewed two budding entrepreneurs in their 20′s who dream of taking their unique take on fashion to the runways across the world. Kevin Parker (co-founder of FBH) and Sherwin Raven (publicist) candidly talked to me about FBH modeling agency and their presentation of Philly Fashion Week Fall 2010.

What is Philadelphia Fashion Week?

Well its 6 days of high fashion experience, innovative new styles, featuring quality couture garments, interactive seminars and entertainment. It is a place where designers, make-up artists, purchasers and business people from all over can network and experience Philadelphia fashion.
(Take a look at the Event Schedule . You Can Purchase Tickets here)

Why do you keep on saying that this is an “experience”?

Well, not only are we offering amazing fashion shows, an addition we are holding an interactive fashion forum for models, stylists, designers, and make-up artists. Featuring, Debra Ginyard, Wendy William’s make-up artist Merrel Hollis, fashione editor Darryl Brown,  just to name a few. Plus, we have Banana Republic store and Kenneth Cole store hosting two days of our fashion shows.

What made the FBH Agency start Philadelphia Fashion Week?

The Fashion week started in 2007, we were inspired from neighboring cities, wanted a more diverse and hands on fashion week. With the constant fashion buzz in Philadelphia and the city’s own unique sense of style we know that like NYC/LA, Philadelphia too, is a big city that deserves a fashion week. For the past 3 years our following has grown like crazy, we always have our inboxes and phones ringing off the hook.

What type of clothing shall we expect?

From off the rack casual wear to high end couture clothing. Something always different, and also things you could wear for a business dinner. Some of the designers are Philadelphia natives like Laquan Smith who has worked with Rihanna and Tyra Banks and Mike Sam for English Clientele who has dressed Eva Longoria and Paris Hilton. B-Vain couture will be returning, and was actually asked to do the wardrobe for a feature film.

What do you see occurring after this show?

Well we see more Philadelphia designers being inspired to present their designs next year. We are bursting with new models, and will be releasing a magazine soon. But most of all we want FBH to be the force behind Philadelphia as a fashion hub of America, and designers and models to know they have a home here.

What is your message to people who are ambivalent about coming?

We believe that entertainment and fashion go hand in hand, therefore we make sure that all our events are an interactive experience. You will meet buyers from stores, film industry workers, photographers, all the way to young models and make up artists. Be prepared for a good conversation, let yourself go and meet new people. We suggest to not get too overwhelmed so that you remember that this could also help you network and start new business relationships.

To contact FBH click here

Read more about FBH click here

So much ingenuity and ambition however the technical side usually stumps most of us. The following is a list of business and legal topics/terms one should keep while operating an apparel based business.

1. How to Brands survive Retail either e-commerce or in-store

2. Changing consumer dynamics

3. Cultural trends and fashion

4. The shifting powers of brands

5. Technology and logistics

6. A complete understanding on a daily basis of everything from preschoolers to grandparents, tweens, teens, and the ever increasingly individualistic mass mar-ket

7. Copyright, trademark, and patent legal issues

8. Brand/label registration in the U.S.A.

9. Code of labor compliance and ethics agreements

10. Rights to import and export

11. Fiduciary responsibilities

12. Royalties

13. Licensing, licensor, licensee

14. Managing agent

15. Licensing agent

16. Merchandising, marketing, and advertising

All of the above items must be part of your knowledge base in order to build a brand, purchase a brand, or license a brand. The Chinese in most instances are buying brands for whom they were the private or OEM manufacturers, and desire to go direct to the retailer and eliminate the so-called middlemen. The other way is to license a name brand that will be well known by the consumer, but not necessarily in your specific product arena. You can build a brand by using all the above, but be prepared to put up a lot of monies to build a branded product.

Do your homework and research first, in order to know the levels of market for the product. In the marketplace there are many labels, but to build a BRAND with national or global recognition is a very costly process. Licensing a brand and paying royalties seems to be the best way to enter a specific retail to consumer area. There are many recognizable brands in one sector that might be the least costly to license and distribute into the market.

Many brands are losing their market share mainly because of large age group shifts, and many new potential brands are coming from other industry sectors that might be applicable to build on, with the least amount of monies. NIKE tried to enter the surf industry for over five years and lost millions of dollars. They finally bought Hurley instead, and now have great sales and distribution.

Know what you can produce, understand your customer, and then seek the most straight forward approach.  Just make sure you have controls in place to allow for expanded sales revenues!

Source: Advice from Bruce Berton, Professor at Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising.

Dont forget to check style pages: His Briefcase & Her Handbag

Her Handbag will give your notion of backpacks a facelift.

The His Briefcase section demonstrates the manliness behind the bow-tie.

Doctored photo of Vanja Gaffi with Mr. Clooney. www.thegossipers.com

Imagine someone used your image to help launch a clothing line!!!  Well that is exactly what happened to George Clooney in Italy.  It all started when George Clooney found photographs of himself wearing a Rolex. How absurd is that you may ask???? Well, Clooney is the spokesperson for Omega Watches so that would never happen.  Next, he found fake pictures of himself with people that he never met!

Doctored pictures of celebrities is nothing new right? I mean we see them in the tabloids all the time… BUT when you base a clothing collection on such a “fabrication” then don’t you think Mr. Clooney will have a problem with it. Vanja Goffi took pictures of herself and doctored George Clooney’s face to make it look like she had his permission to build the clothing line.  Goffi was partnered with Francesco Galdelli and Vincenzo Cannalire and planned to launch a George Clooney Fashion Line.

Rightfully alleging fraud George Clooney was deposed and testified that he had never met Goffi, Galdelli or Cannalire. For 90 minutes he was on the stand after which the Judge said that his time on stand was as long as a movie. lol!

What Fame Appeal thinks: I hate the fact new clothing companies depend on celebrities for promotion. Sounds kinda childish to me. Reminds me of 4th Grade when kids would roll up their FUBU jeans pant leg to be like LL Cool J. (okay bad example but I am sure you can see where I am going with this.)

Well I did a tademark search on George Clooney and he was not able to register his name, however JWOWW from the Jersey Shore has according to TMZ!!! So isn’t it funny how some way or another I find some way to keep my Jersey Pride in these Fame Appeal articles. lol!!!

Forever 21 is a sickness for American Women. It is a shame how millions of them are blinded by its look-a-like clothing scheme and succumb to its poor quality.  Don’t Forever 21 customers realize they are being scammed? Instead of the endless amount of cheap wannabe knockoffs in your closet you could save your money and purchase a quality garment from a real quality fashion house.

Talk about lawsuits. A friend of mine interned for H&M’s in house counsel and she told me that Forever 21 is bombarded with design infringement cases. For example they have had drawn out legal battles with Express. They have copied Gwen Stefani, they have willfully copied the patterns and fabric colors from  Diane Von Fursenberg and Anna Sui…. and this my friends is just the beginning. The quality of their clothes is horrendous!

Don’t let the poorly stitched sequins fool you any longer.  I see it all the time, consumers go into forever 21 and see an item that is only 14.99!! all of sudden a surge of imagination hits them and they feel like they will be the most classy and sexy girl in the room… everyone will give them a second look because their sense of individuality and style. SNAP OUT OF IT!!!! its not true… you’ll look like everyone else who does not have lining in their jackets, fuzzing on their stretch pants and most importantly unshapely low cut shirts that neither provide curvature nor taste to your bosoms…

I see Forever 21 as a glamorized street corner counterfeit seller. You know the ones you see in Chinatown or Times Square. The only difference is that Forever 21 accepts returns and is covered with cheap vinyl white tiles!  It is a company prone to design infringement and is the reason why the Design Piracy Act should be passed by congress.

For those in denial I am sure you can see how the polyester blend in F21 clothing is really 95 percent polyester and 5 percent poor quality cotton. You can see the polyester fuzzing on your back of your shirt around your butt area.
After you wash the great light blues, yellows, greens, reds and oranges begin to fade. (color dyes end up on your lighter toned clothing articles) It is very sad how countless number of women try try and try to act like the clothes they purchase F21 are garments that will impress others. when in all actuality they don’t. I wish American Women would realize that multiple layers of elastic does not hide that the fact that the f21 garment has no inherent structure.

Bottom line, purchasing clothes from Forever 21 is encouraging the company continue its piracy. Don’t encourage stealing and save yourself for poor quality clothing… Stop shopping at F21.

Forget about Yellow or Red cards! In order to be prepare for legal violations the Law Society of South Africa has actually set up a Special World Cup Court. The special court quickly handles issues so that it does not have to be taken care of after the World Cup is over. For example violations :

-committed by non-resident supporters,
-committed against non-resident supporters,
-to which a non-resident is a witness to a crime, or
- committed at a tourist attraction or any other place in the country which in the opinion of a Senior Public Prosecutor will classify the offence as a 2010 FIFA World Cup case.
—————

Grant Abrahamse has been in a legal fight against FIFA for the past five years. He has been accused of violating patet rights by selling a World Cup commemorative key-ring holder. Abrahamse says that FIFA wont allow anyone to benefit from the worldcup except for themselves. He states “No one’s benefitted from the World Cup except FIFA. They are actually worse than the mafia. They should get their just rewards. I’m going to pursue it. We are going to go for costs and damages when we win this case.”

Even though Fifa spend $1.2 Billion in staging the event don’t you think they should allow locals to make some extra money by selling World Cup merchandise? Companies like Coca Cola and Adidas have had to pay $3.2 Billion to be able to sponsor the World Cup, however just because the local’s dont have as much money they should still be able to sell World Cup goods.

• South African courts are strictly enforcing the FIFA trademark only marketing by making an example out World Cup “2010 Lollipops”
• NPR just wrote a good article about it here.

• 

  Official Logo of World Cup - www.FIFA.com

Sarah Van Aken will be presenting her line SA VA on Saturday June 19th at Love Park in Philadelphia. SA VA is a locally made, globally inspired fashion house based on the premise of effortless, individual style. the brand was founded in September 2009 by Philadelphia fashion designer Sarah Van Aken. The mission behind the line is to promote individual style that is effortless and socially conscious. The line includes handmade, fair trade, environmentally sustainable, women’s apparel and accessories. For more information visit SA VA

While shopping at a Zara store in SoHo, to my surprise I found a  Michael Jackson t-shirt displayed for sale. All of sudden “Smooth  Criminal and Beat It” flash backs entered my consciousness.  At the bottom of the t-shirt it states. “Copyright Triumph International Inc, under license to Bravado Merchandising. All Right reserved.” It looks like Triumph International Inc. owns the copyright to Michael Jackson’s name. This means that most of the time whenever the King of Pop’s name is used in commerce permission from Triumph International is needed. Triumph International Inc. owns trademark. After searching the web I found out that Michael Jackson made a new company before he died called MJJ Kingdom; MJJ Kingdom gave Triumph International sole rights to sell licenses to companies to MJ’s name. In the case of Zara, Bravado Merchandising purchased a license to make the t-shirt. Therefore if you look at the tag of the t-shirt it says “Michael Jackson for Zara” and then the Bravado logo is properly displayed since they bought the license to use the name. In addition, MJJ Production which I assume owns principal rights to the Michael Jackson name and image, is included on the tag through his “Official” logo of the dancing feet.

I wonder why Zara is even selling Michael Jackson merchandise? Maybe their fashion house helped designed the clothing and simply used the King of Pop to attract a new demographic in their stores. Over the years I have noticed that Zara has lowered its quality of clothes but to sell a pink and silver glitter Michael Jackson t-shirt was going too far. Though it may be a style faux pas, it is an entertainment and fashion business deal dream come true.As far as Zara is concerned, paying royalties to Bravado Merchandising on these sales is great as long as customers keep on pulling MJ t-shirt’s “off the wall!”

When it comes to fashion, no success is sacred. Last year, the Shashi bracelet, a bauble of macramé and rhinestones, was on Lindsay Lohan’s wrist and sold for about $60 at Henri Bendel and Intermix. Now, American Eagle Outfitters Inc. is selling similar-looking bracelets priced at $12.50.

“It’s not fair,” says jewelry designer Yuvi Alpert, who, along with his business partner, Danna Kobo, makes and sells the Shashi bracelet. While the design continues to sell well, the Shashi bracelets’ retailers have complained about less expensive look-alikes on the Web and in stores, Mr. Alpert says. “I can’t know of how many people didn’t buy Shashi bracelets because of it,” he says. American Eagle Outfitters declined to comment.

Emerging designers like Mr. Alpert and Ms. Kobo are tiny fish in a global fashion food chain that seeks an endless supply of new trends. The fashion world is ravenous for new jewelry, accessories and clothes to fill the shelves of retailers and Web sites, many of which seek to offer fresh inventory as often as every two weeks. Often, existing designs become the inspiration for new, mass-produced pieces.

Small designers face a particularly large burden; often, they lack deep pockets to chase down versions they find similar, and their brands are so little-known that customers often aren’t aware they’re not buying an original design.

Scarf designer Elle Sakellis says she wondered why the trendy retailer Kitson didn’t reorder her $190 Otrera “evil eye” scarves. Ms. Sakellis created the scarves after seeing a wall of luck totems meant to protect against the “evil eye” in a store in Mykonos, Greece. Kitson and Intermix bought them, and they sold well, she and the stores agree. But soon, a scarf with a similar motif, made by a company called Raj Imports Inc., showed up at Kitson for about $30. Then polyester versions appeared on Web sites for as little as $10.

“Everyone always says that imitation is the best form of flattery. But it happened too soon,” she says. “I’m not Louis Vuitton. It’s not like when someone buys a Raj scarf that they know it’s an Otrera knockoff.”

Can you Spot the Knock-Off

Raj Kapoor, owner of Raj Imports, says he can’t remember what inspired his evil-eye-themed scarf. “We do get inspiration from some products. But it’s altered enough to have its own identity,” he says. He said the evil-eye scarf was “insignificant. …We’ve probably designed a few hundred items since then.”

Fraser Ross, owner of Kitson, says he dropped the Otrera scarf for the cheaper version. “It’s like, we carried the higher price,” he says, “and now we’re carrying the diffusion line.”

Designers must be fleet, he says, at creating new, cheaper versions of their own creations. “I’m always telling these designers, ‘Knock yourself off. They’re knocking you off, so do it yourself.’ ”

Store chains and manufacturers are constantly searching for new ideas that can be mass-produced. The Web sites, “look-book” catalogs, and trade shows where emerging designers show their wares to the press and retail buyers can become sources of ideas.

“There are buyers who buy [designs to copy] for a living,” says Michael Heimbold, a partner with the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson whose clients are often the defendants in copycat lawsuits. “They go to a show and say, ‘this is cool, let’s make one.’ ” Mr. Heimbold isn’t familiar with the Shashi bracelets or the scarves.

Tracing the originator of a design can be challenging, because designers are always looking to other sources for inspiration, from ancient symbols to the recent “military” trend. But fashion creators make motifs their own through design choices. What makes the “evil eye” scarf special, for instance, is not the fact it has the symbol but the placement and size of the symbol, the border, and the choices of fabric, color, and details such as beads hanging off the corners.

The mass versions can arrive on the market with astonishing speed. When shoe designer Tiffany Tuttle discovered one of her designs selling under a rival label, she says, “Their shoe actually hit the stores before mine did.”

Trendsetting stores that carry independent designers’ work—stores like Kitson and Fred Segal in Los Angeles, New York City-based Intermix, and Colette in Paris—also help spread ideas. Their celebrity clients feed new trends to a hungry global audience.

The Shashi bracelet became part of the trend machine when Ms. Kobo created the Shashi bracelet. Her partner, Mr. Alpert, initially dissed the pieces as too “girly.” But after the bracelet was introduced at Henri Bendel and Intermix last May, influential stars including Ms. Lohan and Katy Perry were soon wearing them.

By December, Mr. Alpert and Ms. Kobo had sold 10,000 of the bracelets. The Shashi helped fund the young designers’ development of their more expensive Ruby Kobo jewelry line, for which they won a 2010 Council of Fashion Designers of America “Incubator” award.

By February, the bracelets’ retailers began complaining about less expensive versions, Mr. Alpert says. The American Eagle Outfitters bracelet come in a variety of colors like the Shashi’s, and it’s hard to tell the difference between them, except that the American Eagle bracelet’s string seems weaker and coarser.

Mr. Alpert and Ms. Kobo have applied for a patent on the Shashi and say they had an attorney send cease-and-desist letters to American Eagle Outfitters and about a half-dozen Web sites. But it is costly—and seems impossible—to slow the flood of imitators, they say. This week, Mr. Alpert says, the Trendy Room boutique in Port Orange, Fla., cancelled an order of Shashi bracelets, saying cheaper versions are available. The Trendy Room co-owner responsible for the decision couldn’t be reached for comment.

There’s a bill bouncing around Congress that would allow clothing designers to copyright their creations. But critics argue it would benefit only big brands that have the resources to apply for and protect their copyrights, trademarks and patents.

The most effective response to the current environment, according to some small designers, is a steady stream of new material. Mr. Alpert says he and his partner have stockpiled more than a year’s worth of new Shashi designs.

Ms. Sakellis’s latest look is a hamsa hand scarf, featuring the Middle Eastern luck charm. “The hamsa scarf will get knocked off, too,” she says, “I just know it.

Source  Wall Street Journal

—-The Supreme Court announced on April 19th that it would decide the international copyright exhaustion case of Costco v. Omega. Costco purchased Omega watches from a third-party importer and sold the watch for $1,300 instead of the $2,000 suggested retail price. Omega (a division of Swatch) then sued Costco for copyright infringement – alleging that the sale violated the Swiss Company’s US Copyright covering the “Omega globe design” on the back of the watch. In a 2008 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Omega, holding that the US Copyright was not exhausted because Omega had originally sold the watches to distributors in Egypt and Paraguay. This arbitrage was available because Omega sells its watches for a higher price in the US than it does elsewhere.

The question on appeal is whether Omega’s authorized foreign sale exhausted its US copyright.

Under the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), the owner of any particular copy “lawfully made under this title” may resell that good without the authority of the copyright holder. The closest Supreme Court precedent is Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. L’Anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 138 (1998). In that case, the unanimous court held that the copyright was exhausted and therefore that the copyright holder could not block imports of shampoo bottles with copyrighted labels. The Ninth Circuit distinguished Quality King based on the fact that the labels were originally made in the US then shipped abroad before being re-imported. According to the Ninth Circuit, the Omega watches are not subject to the first sale doctrine because they were not “lawfully made under” the US Copyright Act.

The US Patent Laws are also subject to an exhaustion doctrine – although patent exhaustion is entirely judge-made and not subject to statutory interpretation. In Fuji Photo Film Co. v. ITC, 474 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal Circuit held that US patent rights are only exhausted through a first sale “in the United States.” In that case, the Federal Circuit recognized that “a different rule applies in copyright cases.” Of course, the Supreme Court’s copyright decisions often interplay its discussion of the two intellectual property forms.

Patent holders that rely upon the current law to block parallel imports will likely want to file an amicus brief to justify a difference between the two regimes.

Thriving Resale Market: EBay argues that the Omega ruling “could have a detrimental effect on the ability of buyers and sellers of secondary-market goods to engage in commerce in the United States.”

Copyright?: Of course, Omega would be hard-pressed to claim copyright in the watch itself. Rather, the copyright claim is in the arrangement of the 8 mm OMEGA symbol and name.  Although not strictly at issue here, the Supreme Court is not likely to overlook the fact that the copyright claim is an artificial construct that Omega is asserting to control downstream uses of its non-copyrighted watch that it otherwise could not control.

Source PatentlyO

The contract reads: “The Project may lead to emotional strains and pressures on you, your business, your friends, your co-workers and family.

“Your actions and the actions of others displayed in the Project may be disparaging, embarrassing or of an otherwise unfavorable nature and may expose you, your business, your friends, your co-workers and/or your family to public ridicule, humiliation or condemnation.”

Would you want to give Snookie (Nicole Polizzi) or The Situation ( Mike Sorrentino ) permission to grind on your dance floor, or better yet allow Ronnie beat some innocent bystander up during a drunken rage in your hotel? Would the popularity of their TV actually bring business to your company or would the cost of destroying property or even your business’s reputation prevent you from allowing these MTV B-list celebs on your property.

Rapids Water Park, a favorite summer destination in these parts, was contacted recently to allow the cast and crew to spend a day there. Park spokeswoman Tina Hatcher said the publicity would have been nice. Still, she said thanks, but no thanks!

“They did contact us, but we declined,” Hatcher said. “Basically, the contract gives them the right to do whatever they want, including breaking things, trashing the place, and there’s nothing we could do. That’s too much of a risk.” source

Rule- My Entertainment Law professor wrapped up the semester by talking about Film contracts, one of which is called a Location Release. Generally, someone who has authority must give the TV show or Movie maker permission to use their property to make a film, in return they get paid or reap the benefits of such popularity. On the Jersey Shore grimy NJ clubs like Bamboo and Karma were the mainstay for our beloved Guido’s because the wood grain wall paper and vinyl tiles are easily replaceable. (both of which I do not suggest my readers to visit) On the other hand, Miami is comprised of higher end establishments which appeal to world wide visitors. In my opinion Miami Beach doesn’t need Jersey Shore cast members for popularity, and will not succumb to the reality show’s popularity.

Holding-  Jersey shore will either have to negotiate the terms in the contract OR some lower end establishments with little to lose will permit the show to film on the their premises. (In hopes of legendary popularity)

-April 19th in Chestnut the Fashion Group International presented a beautiful fashion designer competition at  The Chestnut Club in center city Philadelphia. The event was hosted by Emmy award winning host and producer Linda Swain. The fashion show competition was fantastic, I was extremely impressed by the attention to detail and practical retail possibilities for the designs. While other designs were quite over the top the were was a good balance between classic and innovative styles.  Two main points to take away from the Q & A after the show was (1) to represent yourself with consistent branding so that your image becomes easier to identify (2) make your designs consumer friendly so that a large consumer will be attracted to your clothing.

-All my pictures/videos will be posted on Fame Appeal’s Facebook and You Tube page later this week. Remember to subscribe to the blog so you get the updates

Kathleen Raub, Adrianna Papell design director Cliff Boone, and Me!

Fashion design students representing six Design Schools, Albright College, Drexel University,  Moore College of Art & Design, Philadelphia University, The Art Institute of Philadelphia and The University of Delaware, compete before a panel of judges from all facets of the design/fashion world, showing their latest and very cutting-edge creations. Winners of the competition, one from each of the six schools, will be awarded a $1,000.00 Scholarship from the Fashion Group® of Philadelphia Educational Foundation, Inc.

The panel of judges, Cliff Boone, Design Director-Evening for Adrianna Papell, New York City, Nicole A. Cashman, President and CEO of Cashman & Associates, Sarah Schaffer, Editor in Chief of Philadelphia Style and Capitol File Magazines, Joan Shepp, President of her namesake Walnut Street store, Joan Shepp/Suelle Corporation, Sarah Van Aken, CEO and Designer of S.V.A. Holdings Corporation, and Susanna P. Whitehill, Member of the F.G.I. Board of Directors and Owner of Susanna’s Selections for Jewelry, Handbags and Accessories,

• Following the competition there was a discussion answering question on how to break it into the Fashion industry. I recorded quite a bit of it and plan to put it on You Tube later this week.
  List of Designers are as follows:
  Albright College: Rachel Garran, Brittany Herbert, Andre Jackson
  The Art Institute of Philadelphia: Donte Livingston, Carolina Perez, Keith Wiggns
  University of Delaware: Lisette Folkes, Kesley Williams, Jacqueline Zaddarano
  Drexel University: Claire Housh, Anthony P. Noce III, Margot Snyder
  Moore College of Art & Design: Neel El Sherif, Alana Oates, Dominique Streater
  Philadelphia University: Bianca DePetro, Jilian Garvey, Rachel Wending

You can find the article here

Fonzworth Bentley called who attended “ceo’s” because everyone is the owner of their own corporation its just their own push and pursuit of excellence will get you there”

Hill Harper lectures

Fonzworth Bentley with fame Fan Fahad Shariff

• Alternative dispute resolution services, are now available to protect the concepts behind media such as Game Shows and Reality shows from unauthorized spin-offs across the world.

Have you ever asked yourself, “Doesn’t this reality tv show look like one that was cancelled a couple months ago?” Well TV show creators around the world have been asking themselves a slightly similar question, except they see it as an unauthorized copy. On April 11th an alternate dispute resolution to prevent the furtherance of unauthorized copying of televsion formats opened. Thanks to the joint efforts from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA). The need for international protection is well founded, so many game shows or reality have started in one country and then a copy made in a different country. Although the licensed show Indian Idol, (from American Idol) was one of the highest rated shows in the country; due the shows success unauthorized spin offs phone-in voting talent shows have have spread.

Potential users of the WIPO Mediation and Expedited Arbitration Rules for Film and Media include film makers, directors, actors, performers and guild/industry associations. The special WIPO Mediation and Expedited Arbitration for Film and Media are particularly time and cost-efficient procedures specifically tailored to the needs of parties in most film and media disputes. However, the WIPO Center recognizes that in certain complex film and media disputes, users in the film and media sector may prefer to choose the standard WIPO Arbitration Rules. The standard WIPO Arbitration Rules provide for longer timelines and the possibility of appointing a three-member arbitral tribunal. Where the parties in a film and media dispute have opted for standard WIPO Arbitration, the WIPO Center still makes available its WIPO List of Arbitrators for Film and Media from which the parties can select arbitrators. Source

• Format Recognition and Protection Association Press release located here.
• You can see the rule of arbitration here
• Many thanks to Fame Fan Dan Heller about this topic.

]]> http://fameappeal.com/?feed=rss2&p=773 0 http://fameappeal.com/?p=740 http://fameappeal.com/?p=740#comments Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:41:45 +0000 Fame Appeal: Fashion & Entertainment Blog http://fameappeal.com/?p=740 Guest writer Susan Scafidi. Fashion Law Professor at Fordham Law
www.counterfeitchic.com

Gucci (top) Guess (bottom

How can you tell whether that guy down at the courthouse is a practicing attorney or just someone who wears pinstripes well?

• Law degree?  Check.
• Bar exam passage?  Check.
• Business cards with a formal title, or at least an “Esq.”?  Check.
• Client?  Check.
• Case?  Check.
• Current state bar membership?  Oops.

When Gucci’s then-in-house counsel Jonathan Moss first noticed that Guess seemed perhaps a bit too admiring of certain famous Gucci trademarks, it seemed that he had everything going for him.  A job with a storied fashion house and a juicy brand protection case to pursue — what more could a lawyer want?

A reminder to reactivate his long-dormant California bar membership, apparently.  It seems that the New York-based Moss had deactivated his only state bar membership some 13 years before filing the case to avoid the annual fee — and counsel for defendant Guess noticed.  Now Guess is requesting access to internal Gucci communications with respect to the case, arguing that they are not covered by attorney-client privilege because Jonathan wasn’t a licensed lawyer at the time they were made.

Whether or not the Guess gambit works, and whether or not the court ultimately finds that Guess infringed Gucci’s trademarks, this case will be remembered for the error that caused a luxury label to turn its inside counsel out.

In regards to the trademark infringement case: Given that Gucci owns U.S. trademarks on both its “GG” logo in diamond configuration (reg. #3072547) and its green and red stripe (reg. #1483526) for footwear, Guess seems to be almost taunting its higher-priced competitor.  On the other hand, there are definite if subtle differences in  the companies’ respective Gs, the colors of the stripes, and the otherwise unprotected shoe designs.

Still, if the question is whether a court would find a likelihood of confusion between the two, I’d hate to (be) Guess.
The brand protection case is here

Note: On my second day of law school I started to read Counterfeit Chic. Thank you Susan Scafidi for educating me.

The creators of Hannah Montana are suing Disney for $5 Million of backpay!

The entertainment industry loses its glitz and glamour once a contract disputes surfaces. Hidden somewhere in between some buried contract section is a clause that contains terms for who will get compensated for what, and by how much. Lawyers know this, however the artist they represent fall victim to it every time. In the TV biz, there are advancements given around the board in hopes that directors, producers, actors will stay on board to ensure a television show’s success.

You would think Hanah montana’s innocence would make disney play fair. however, anyone who knwos disney’s tenacity would tell you, they wont pay up without a fight. and a legal fight co creators Barry O’Brien and Richard Correll are prepared for. O’Brien and Correll created the show with Michael Poryes in 2005. They now say they’re owed millions in pre-negotiated percentage-based bonuses based on their backend deals and WGA requirements for writers who receive “created by” credits. The duo claim Disney has denied repeated requests for payment and thwarted attempts to audit profits from the show. source

The new lawsuit, filed by Robert Nau of Los Angeles firm Alexander Nau Lawrence Frumes & Labowitz, claims damages of at least $5 million on causes of action for breach of contract, accounting and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. source

Fame Appeal is working on getting a copy of the complaint

Gucci America, Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta and Yves Saint Laurent America have teamed up and filed trademark infringement suit against an array of online counterfeit retailers. Commercial litigator Anne Coyle Esq. is the counsel representing a number of fashion houses. Defendants include Bagsmerchant, LLC andwww.BagsDeal.com. Ms. Coyle told me over the phone that this issue was one of the many commercial litigation disputes she had in her caseload. Even though she was busy with work she took the time to discuss her profession with me and encouraged me with my endeavors as a future lawyer. She kindly provided the complaint which located here.

Online shopping has become the bargain rack for many budget shoppers. Shipping costs aside online sample sales like Gilt Groupe have made what I called “.jpeg fitting rooms” all the rave. Likewise the world of counterfeit online shopping has expanded. It is widely known that  merchants can set up shop online with little regulation and openly sell knock-offs. However, what I find surprising is the fact that counterfeit retailers offer actual customer service! For example Bag Merchants will allow payment through credit card, western union and even bank transfers! Bags will even include “serial number stamp, dust bag, tag/booklet, locks and keys”

Information on protecting Intellectual Property visit StopFakes.gov

Complaint located here

Founder of South Butt apparel company Jimmy Winklemann

I have waited several months  until this legal dispute was over before writing about it. The North Face is a name we all know and trust. High quality, cold-weather, clothing and gear, has been a signature of North Face for many years. Who would have thought that a silly teenager would take such a brand and flip it completely upside down!  Well folks, The South Butt is to the fashion world what Wierd Al Yankovic is to the music world.

Story line-  In an attempt to help his parents pay for his college tuition Jimmy Winkelmann started a clothing line called The South Butt. The placement of the logo, and color scheme between Winkelmann’s designs and the North Face jackets/sweaters are extremely similar. However the South Butt is not supposed to be used as protection from bone chilling temperatures, instead its only purpose is to assist the clothing wearer in RELAXING.

Lawsuit- In their complaint, North Face claimed trademark infringement of their Denali Jacket, (NF Jacket / SB Jacket) they claimed violation in accordance to the Lanham Act since the South Butt misused the North Face design. North Face also claimed that the South Butt was liable for unfair competition and design infringement. The South Butt, gave a ridiculous answer to the complaint, (if i wrote like this in Legal Writing class I would have completely failed), take the time to look, it’s a great read.

Holding- The two sides settled.  Even though the settlement is under wraps, Fame Appeal believes that the lawyers for North Face persuaded the company  that it is not worth suing a teenager who simply used South Butt as a parody to make money for college.

You can get your South Butt clothing here

The Complaint filed by North Face here

The Answer filed by South Butt here

• Imagine going to a concert of one of the world’s biggest rock bands and seeing a giant reproduction of your art on stage. L.A.-based artist Dereck Seltzer says in a new lawsuit that it happened to him.  Dereck Seltzer sues Green Day for copyright infringement and unfair competition. Seltzers alleges that Green Day used his artwork in a music video and he was never asked about it nor was he compensated. He says in a complaint filed in federal court in Los Angeles. “They added the cross, but my artwork was clearly and deliberately used. Even after I complained, they continued to use it, offering me concert tickets in settlement.(Thanks Eriq for the info)Seltzer is seeking up to $30,000, or $150,000

• (if the infringement is found to be willful) for each copyrighted work infringed. According to the complaint, filed by Todd Bonder at Rosenfeld Meyer & Susman, the art was reproduced on stage as well as on Green Day’s website and in performances of the song “East Jesus Nowhere” distributed on video, and broadcast on television as part of Green Day’s performance at the American Music Awards.

Here is a copy of the complaint

Left, a projection of the offending image at a Green Day concert; Right, Seltzer’s image (via TMZ)

Imagine you produce a hit TV show, and it suddenly gets cancelled. You are not worried because other networks want to keep on showing it as reruns and you plan on getting royalties.  When networks buy licenses to show TV series,  the royalties that come from the many networks get really complicated.  The following article does a good job at explaining the “vertical integration” concept. (relax its not a math term)

Source-The Hollywood Reporter

Smallville” just became the latest battleground in the war over vertical integration in Hollywood.

Creators/executive producers Miles Millar and Alfred Gough and series co-producer Tollin/Robbins Prods. on Friday sued Warner Bros. TV, the studio behind the long-running sci-fi series, and with the CW, the network that recently renewed the show for a 10th season.

Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty are alleged against Time Warner and its divisions — WBTV, Warner Bros. Domestic TV Distribution, the now-defunct WB network, where the show started — and the CW, a co-venture with CBS. The complaint says WBTV made license fee deals with the WB and then the CW that “were not arms-length.” The complaint does not specify damages but, given the allegations and the longevity of the series, they could total in the tens of millions of dollars.

“Warner Bros.’ practices of unfair self-dealing include licensing the series for broadcast on its own affiliated WB and CW networks for unreasonably low, below-market license fees, resulting in lower gross revenues for the series and less compensation for plaintiffs, and failing to renegotiate the series’ license fee to cover its production cost,” the suit claims.

Sound familiar?

It should. So-called “vertical integration” cases were all the rage at the beginning of the decade, thanks to the consolidation of TV production and distribution following the lifting of “fin-syn” rules. That resulted in a wave of lawsuits brought by profit participants on shows whose owners were licensing content to sister-company distributors. Participants on “Home Improvement” and “The X-Files” reportedly received massive settlements after claiming in lawsuits against Disney and Fox, respectively, that vertical integration cost them millions. A trial over profits from NBC’s hit comedy “Will & Grace” actually reached a jury, but the case was settled before the verdict was read.

The “Smallville” producers also claim that Warner Bros. sold the show in foreign markets and “lumped it in with several other, less successful shows” in a package. In allocating individual license fees to the series afterwards, “several series that are less popular than ‘Smallville’ were allocated a higher per-episode fee than ‘Smallville’ ” and “Smallville’s” allocation was “well below the value of the series in the foreign markets.”

The misallocation theory mirrors claims in a lawsuit filed in 2004 against Warner Bros. by Alan Ladd Jr., a profit participant on several Warners hits from the 1980s who argued that his movies were lumped into packages and undervalued when Warners allocated license fees across hundreds of films. That case ended in a $3 million-plus jury verdict for Ladd in 2007, which is still on appeal.

Additionally the suit claims that Warner Bros. improperly withheld foreign taxes to the tune of $3.3 million, improperly reported production costs that resulted in $4 million in withheld revenue, didn’t pursue or did not report savings from the Canadian tax credit stemming from the fact that “Smallville” is produced in Canada and thwarted plaintiffs’ audit attempts.

As a whole, the producers accuse the Time Warner divisions of “depriving them of compensation to which they are entitled … by failing to maximize profits from the series, all to the benefit of the vertically-integrated conglomerate Time Warner,” and are looking to recover “millions of dollars” of unpaid compensation.

Warner Bros. had no comment on the lawsuit, which was filed by attorney Michael Kump.

Written by YM Ousley of Signature 29

Score one for Google, as the internet giant gets a favorable ruling from a European court in its 5-year legal fight with luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton and their parent company LVMH. Louis Vuitton had asserted that Google’s practice of allowing anyone to bid on trademarked names opened the door to the sale of counterfeit items. In the US and the UK, the system even extended the right to advertisers to include trademarked brands within their ads. So if you were to search for “Louis Vuitton”, nothing would prevent Chanel from running an ad saying “Louis Vuitton is good, but Chanel is great.” That’s only an example, the luxury houses seem to have a gentleman’s agreement to not bid on their rivals names, even if the practice is legal.

While the new ruling protects Google’s ability to sell trademarked search terms, it does reverse a previous ruling which opened the doors to allowing advertisers to include trademarked names within search results. The European Court of Justice decided that advertisers who don’t make it clear that they aren’t commercially affiliated with the trademark holder can find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the brand.

This case settled trademark issues with paid search marketing,  but it also exposes the failings of Louis Vuitton and other brands when it comes to online reputation management and search engine optimization.

read more at Signature 29

VX FASHION SHOW HERE

The VX Fashion Show information is at  www.vxfashion.com.

Stay tuned for updates regarding designers, check Runwayink.com for additional info. What a great opportunity for the public to come to this event. Fame Appeal will be there as press!

Techflaws.org was the first of a few to point out that Nintendo, decided to completely shut down a fan made film based on the immensely popular classic video game The Legend of Zelda. Apparently the fan-made film took a few years to produce, but once it was done, it was released and even shown in a few theaters before Nintendo threatened legal action. The movie makers caved and as a “concession” the move was allowed to be shown online but only through the end of last year. Source

Although this movie was a free promotion for the Nintendo corporation, the movie makers did not have the legal right to use the characters of Zelda in order to promulgate their own film. In order to make a Zelda movie BMB should have obtained a license.  The issue remains though that in this age of online movies, how many other independent filmakers are making their own versions of protected media through film?

Is it a good business strategy to incorporate your significant other as a partner in your endeavors? Well Lady Gaga,  (Stephanie Germanotta) and her ex-boyfriend Rob Fusari surely think it is not. Rob Fusari used to be Lady Gaga’s producer way back when. If the relationship between artist and producer end, at what time does the producer stop receiving a royalty check?

Source

Fusari, who penned and produced several songs from Lady GaGa’s multi-platinum debut The Fame including her hit single “Paparazzi”, says he was romantically involved with the singer, helped her get her record deal with Interscope Records, convinced her to switch from the rock music she loved to the more commercial dance beats that have now become her trademark, and even came up with the name “Lady GaGa”.

According to the lawsuit, Lady Gaga and Fusari’s relationship turned romantic and then became a business partnership in May 2006, when they created a joint venture called Team Love Child LLC to promote her career. Fusari’s share was 20 percent.

The lawsuit says that once his romantic relationship with GaGa (real name Stefani Germanotta) turned sour that she denied him a 20 percent share of song royalties, 15 percent of merchandising revenue and other money that he’s owed.

“It’s an age-old story in the music business,” said Robert Meloni, a lawyer for Fusari. “You become famous and you turn on the person who discovered you.” {source}

Although this case pertains to potential royalties that are owed, this isn’t the first time that the authenticity of Lady GaGa’s image and sound have come into question. In August last year GaGa’s first booking manager and producer Frankie Fredericks claimed that GaGa was a brilliant musician and composer who had never shown an interest in commercial pop music, but sold out and completely changed her sound and image once she got a major record deal.

He also said that Rob Fusari was involved in creating the “Lady GaGa” name, and that he doesn’t buy her “Lady GaGa” image as her true persona like she so feverishly insists that it is. {source}

Do you believe Rob’s claims against Steffie G, or do you think he just wants a bigger slice of the GaGa pie?

                                                                                                                                     State inspectors in Zhejiang, China claimed to have found widespread health risks and fraud from brands  like Dolce & Gabbana, Trussardi, Hugo Boss, Paul & Shark alongside Hermes and Versace. In a test where they took a random sample of 85 batches of clothing, 60% of them failed Chinese quality standards. Inspectors found poor color fastness, high levels of acid, high levels of formaldehyde. Chinese health reports say that these can cause skin rashes, eye irritations, allergies, respiratory problems and even cancer. The clothes were manufactured from countries ranging from Italy, France, Morocco, Turkey, Vietnam and India.

What Fame Appeal found shocking was that none of the Fashion Houses would be held liable because none of them are registered in China. Instead, the Chinese government will issue fines to the clothing stores as a penalty for violating  Product Quality Law.

• Phillips – Van Heusen corporation has purchased Tommy Hilfiger for approximately $3 Billion dollars! However, the problem here is whether Tommy Hilfiger  will lose its sizable share in the upper-middle class consumer base while owned by PVH. When a large parent company operates a bunch of smaller companies it is highly probably that it’ subsidiaries like, Tommy Hilfiger, will lose its appeal. This is because, PVH will streamline Tommy’s multiple lines and sell fewer products. On the other hand, some brands have actually done better once operated by PVH. For example ever since PVH introduced Calvin Klein’s Mens Sportswear in 2005, the brand has done a lot better. Subsequently, as long as PVH and Tommy Hilfiger work together to reinvent the brand it may succeed just like Calvin Klein has.

Courtesy Lucasfilm & Verizon/Motorola

• How much does it cost to Droid?

• I too  loved carrying my R2D2 lunch box. I remember playing with my big brother’s Millenium Falcon. However I never dreamed that 20 years later I would want a Droid Cellphone! George Lucas might not have dreamed of it either, but he sure is banking on it now!  Yes that is right, Mr. Verizon had to buy a license to use the model name “droid” in order to sell the Motorola phone. Fame Appeal enjoys the legal control a film can have many years after its released, because it demonstrates the potential for profit many years later.
• Sorry, guys and girls there is no lawsuit here. Fortunately Verizon went the legal route and obtained a license to use the Droid word trademark. Fame Appeal is working day and night looking for just how much money Lucasfilm Ltd. charged Verizon for the license. Do you think the name “Droid” is worth it? Do you own a Droid, and do you feel the marketing and model name makes a difference?

• I have been told that young Entertainment lawyers look for publicity in every nook and cranny. I am only in Law School and I am using this blog to let people know who I am. (Click on about me page) However, there comes a time in everyone’s life when they just get desperate for attention. Is this what Stephanie G. Ovadia, Esq is looking for when she took Lindsay Lohan as her client?
• Fame Appeal doesn’t think Attorney Ovadia is looking for attention. She is demonstrating to the world that, regardless of your status in society, you will always have a legal advocate to fight for what’s in your best interest. In addition, she has beautifully articulated Lohan’s complaint.
• In the United States of America, as long you have a legal claim for relief, you have a shot at a lawsuit. In this day and age, social media can help lift off your career in a split second. It looks like E-TRADE better watch out, because their name has been soiled with TMZ blush and Perez Hilton lipstick.

StyleList.com

• Well it looks like Burlington Coat Factory has to got to find $4.7 M in those oversized U.S. Polo association jacket pockets! Federal Judge Leonard Sand of New York decided that the retailer KNOWINGLY VIOLATED Fendi’s trademark rights.
• But isn’t $4.7M a little bit too much? Well not really– Burlington Coat Factory is actually a repeat offender. First, in 1987, when Burling Coat Factory was caught selling counterfeit Fendi bags, Justice Sotomayor (I love her last name) granted an injunction against the retailer. Secondly, in 2004 Burlington Court Factory was caught again, and Fendi sent a cease and desist letter, and in 2006 Fendi filed for trademark infringement.
• Well it looks like those shelves at Marshalls, Tj Maxx, and other similar stores may be selling bargains, but in the back of your mind always check to see if the merchandise is genuine.
• Source: FindLaw

• Movie- Music by Prudence …..hasn’t prudence gone through enough in life… my goodness
• I just watched Roger Ross Williams the movie maker of the Short film Prudence get his SPOTLIGHT TOTALLY STOLEN… by this fat woman in a purple dress with crazy red hair or purple… i cant believe she just ran up on stage and took it from him like that… totally pulled a Kanye West on him. she totally ruined the moment
• I feel so bad for Ross Williams because HE HAD NO IDEA WHAT TO DO.  So much love to Elinor Mabhena for her achievements.
• I am sure he was going to dedicate it to Prudence Mabhena, that lady did not need to run up on the stage like that totally shocked. I am happy he won the documentary short category
• you can see the video here
• courtesy Lehigh

• UPDATE: COMMERCIAL HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF THE INTERNET I GUESS LV PROVED THEIR CLAIM!
• Looks like Lexus, Mercedes Benz, and Honda are not alone… even Louis Vuitton is a victim of Hyundai’s poser-style.

Watch the video

• Sarver is suing the film maker on multiple grounds included Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, Emotional Distress just to name a few. You can view the actual complaint here.
  
• He believes that his interview published in Playboy did not give the film makers permission to exploit his story and defame his good name. The movie portrays Sgt Sarver as a ”bad father,” “messed up,” “reckless,” “unstable,” enjoys playing cruel practical jokes on people, etc.  The movie claims to be fictional however all the events in the movie have happened to him, and even the name “The Hurt Locker” is a term made by Sarver.
• My entertainment law professor taught filmmakers must make sure that there are no invasion of privacy issues in the script. Something the the makers of “The Hurt Locker” did not do.

“An international arrest warrant has been issued for a Colombian beauty queen and lingerie model who police believe may have run a drug trafficking operation using models and beautiful women, according to British media.  The Telegraph reported that 30-year-old Angie Sanselmente Valencia is wanted for using a squad of beautiful women as drug mules, transporting cocaine from South America to Europe.
Police said they discovered the operation when they arrested a 21-year-old woman carrying 55 kilos of cocaine at Buenos Aires’ Ezeiza Airport, the newspaper said.”

• During the month of February, Fame Appeal has been on location at NYC and Philadelphia fashion week. It never crossed my mind that a runway model would ever control a drug smuggeling empire!

• Many sipping on Lady Gaga hate-orade believe that her overzealous trade marking (which spreads from cell phone vinyl covers all the way to tank tops) may hurt her brand name in the future. Here is her trademark action: 

• 
  

• F.A. knows there is well founded criticism that her products may end up in the “tacky aisle” of Paris Hilton’s hair products. But dont you think Lady Gaga headphones are worth protecting??? Real fan’s know that Lady Gaga’s merchandise is of a better quality than the re-printed rock band t-shirts teens buy from hot topic. Therefore it behooves her to clearly protect her trademark from the hundreds of other distributors trying to make money on her fame, even if it includes tank tops and sweatpants!

• 

• Ladies, if you purchase Kim Kardashian’s new perfume from Sephora, all you will be doing is rewarding her lack of originality. It is a shame that Kim’s multimillion dollar company could not afford to get its own design, and had to leech off of someone else.
• 
• Little did, Lindley Bertin know, that the day she gave Kim Kardashian a necklace she designed would lead to a potential bitter dispute of trademark and design infringement!
• Lindely Bertin, the designer for Korcula jewelry, states that “she stole my artwork AND color scheme from my website to use on her new bottle of perfume.” Even though Bertin has not filed suit just yet, I wish that I graduated law school a little earlier to be part of this potential lawsuit.
• F.A. totally sides with Korcula designer Lindley Bertin.  For more information about Miss. Bertin’s issue go to her blog here. To support her fantastic jewelry shop over here.
• Courtesy WENN & Korcula

click for info

• (Press Release) Everyone wants to go to Fashion Week! Although Philly is known for its artistic talents, it has never been known as a fashion mecca. Philadelphia’s Fashion Week is now being recognized as an event that showcases its talents with some of the hottest fashion shows. F.B.H. Entertainment has made a name for itself in the City of Brotherly Love by promoting some of the most famous names in Philadelphia, New York, and other surrounding areas. Go here for more information. I’ll be sure to see you there

• Wideawake Entertainment has re-released the Chronic, but forgot about asking Dr. Dre’s permission! His claim of  trademark infringement has given him the munchies for more money!
• It all started back in 1992, Dr. Dre’s album Chronic was released by Death Row records; Suge Knight and Dr. Dre ran the company 50/50.
• Because of Knight’s lethal control of the label, Dr. Dre wanted to get out of Death Row.  In a 1996 contract Dr. Dre escaped Death Row (no pun intended!) by  ASSIGNING his 50% share back to Death Row Records. In return Death Row records promised to give him the royalties from the sound recordings that Dre wrote, produced and performed in.
• In 2006, Death Row went bankrupt and any future owner was put on notice that the Chronic album must be used in a manner that will award Dr. Dre royalties as stated in the 1996 agreement.
• Well in January 2009, Wideawake Entertainment (owned by a trademark lawyer) bought Death Row and in August 2009 cashed in on the histroic record company with a re-released Chronic under a new name called “Re-Lit” illegaly.
• Dr. Dre argues that Wideawake Entertianment has engaged in unauthorized use of “Chronic” album by reproducing it as “Chronic Re-lit & From the Vault” and demads royalties
• You can see the complaint here.
• Thank you Milord A. Keshishian
• To buy the fake Chronic go  here. And the Real stuff is here

Farewell to the Tent at Bryant Park. Good memories. I love so many things about fashion week… the celebrities, the fashion forward dressing, the models, and of course the great people you meet. The following are some of the hundred pictures takens of models I ran into,  runway, and other stuff…. oh the memories..

crowded in the tent

crazy suit

end of the show

Fashion Writer

• more to come!

• So if you were watching the Air Force commercial during the super bowl and thought to yourself, hey that background music sounds familiar, you weren’t alone. Jack White, of the White Stripes threatened to file a complaint against the Air Force Reserves stating that it sounds similar to his song “Fell in Love with a Girl” off the White Blood Cells album.
• Anyway, the songwriter for the commercial, Kem Kraft, told the New York Times, that he never meant to copy off the White Stripes, and that it was unintentional. He also says that he takes full responsibility for being a copy-cat and that the Air Force should NOT take any blame.
• F.A. does not believe Mr. Kraft one bit. I believe that he and the Air Force knew this before hand and simply did not want to bother paying for the licensing fees from the White Stripes to use the background music.
• Other than copyright infringement… do you think that the White Stripes anti-war image has been tarnished and could sue on a potential defamation/negligence  claim?

UGG, owned by Deckers Outdoors, is suing Claire’s, run by CBI Distributing, for patent infringement. You can order a copy of the complaint here. The red boot on the right is real and the left is Fake. The two look so similar and if it was a unique style then F.A. would totally side with Ugg. However F.A. has seen so many knock-off Ugg’s at department stores like Kohls and JcPenny that we believe it is no longer unique.   Do you think the Ugg boot design  has become so common, just like the RayBan Wayfarer design, that it is not worth going to court for?

• F.A. usually won’t bother with something like Ugg’s Uggs however it decided to simply to include the following:

1. If you want to walk around with the ass of a sheep on your feet , you can do so, for a lot cheaper by  buying your boots from Claire’s!
2. If you want to act like your from Orange County back in the Summer of 2006, you can do so for a lot cheaper by  buying your boots from Claire’s!
3. And one more,…. If you want to ruin your posture, and be another woman (or confused man) with a droopy butt you can do so, for a lot cheaper by  buying your boots from Claire’s!

• Sorry I just had to get that out of my system..I know that as the creator/writer for F.A. I try to apply what I know as a law student and should be siding with copyright protection, however this time my fashion designer self took over.

Left: Marc Jacobs. Right: Ed hardy being a poser

F.A. completely sides with Marc Jacobs on this one. First of all, Marc Jacobs’ bag has been out in the market longer. If you look at the bags, Mr. Audiger totally copied the proportions of the bag; size is by far one of the most important features of any handbag. Marc Jacobs’ design of taking his name and embroidering it on the bag, in capital letters, is exactly what Mr. Audigier did.

Every human being has a soul, and today a soul’s body has died

So just because she is married to Jay-Z, and her family runs a succesful clothing line (House of Dereon), doesn’t mean that Beyonce Knowles can get away with ripping off the Chinese manufactuer who makes her clothes.  Vier International is suing House of Dereon, Donna Loren L.L.C., and HJM International shippers for $500,0000 in breach of contract. What makes it even worse is that it is for a conspiracy to breach contract threatening to pay less for the Chinese shipment or else just steal the shipment!!!!

• F.A. sides with Vier International Limited, because if the Knowles family wants to sell high quality clothing they should know better than using Chinese manufactures (no offense). Last year Donna Loren L.L.C. made $4.3M  and they only have 30 employees!!! I am sure they can afford it! (by they way anyone know if they are hiring?)

• To the untrained eye these two shoes look different; however, if you look at the sole of the shoe the heart designs are substantially similar. The design patent filed by Brooke Hallow Inc., owner of  Gwyneth Shoes, is suing Antebi Footwear Group LLC, which has partnered with Paris Footwear.
  

• F.A. cheers for Gwyneth Shoes on this lawsuit; the pink heart design is unique and placed in an area rarely seen when walking around. Only the owner knows it is there, and when shuffling through the closet to find her perfect pair of shoes, the heart design sets it apart from the hundreds of other pairs.
• Paris Footwer and Gwenyth shoes will have to duke it out in court. The current legal test, taken from Egyptian Goddess v. Torkiya, asks a jury to look at the design patent and then look at the allegedly infringing device.  If an ordinary observer, upon comparing the two, would believe the accused device copied the design patent then there is an infringement.  Source
• Quick note to the ladies, shoe companies are rarely independently owned, they are usually groups of shoe companies that make many different styles for specific labels. Which is why when you go to common department stores a lot of  shoes look the same! If you want something different you have to go to boutique stores and pay a hefty price for something truly unique. (totally worth it)