[ad_1]
Intellectual property discrimination in fashion
Weeks after Adidas lost its trademark lawsuit against Tom Brown, Nike filed its own lawsuit against Bape. The issue is not surprising given the controversy surrounding the Bape Sta, which is similar to the Air Force 1s. Citing trademark infringement and falsification of its place of origin, Nike said the latter, “the business revolves around copying Nike’s iconic designs.” The word ‘icon’ is key.
Fashion, often bad, often victims of psychologists discard the artistic value. The government is no different. Current copyright laws do not extend to “useful” items such as clothing. Courts protect certain exceptions made through “identification,” including design features that are distinct from the material itself, such as graphics. But when the physicality of the garment is the focal point, are designers simply spoiled?
Europe does not have the same problem as America. The rich history of fashion in the continent helps the industry. European designers can register design rights that help brands.
Now, let’s take a look at some of the intellectual property issues that have set the tone in the fashion industry in the USA.
Landmark intellectual property issue
First, the battle between Christian Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent started in 2011. The former, famous for their red outsoles on their shoes, filed a lawsuit after learning YSL planned to sell monochrome shoes — including red shoes. The shoe brand filed suit based on claims of trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition. YSL fought back to remove the “red sole on a shoe” trademark, saying it’s “functional.”
After going through several layers of court, the plaintiff successfully won. While the original judge ruled that single-color trademarks were not allowed, a second court found that ruling to be contrary to a 1995 Supreme Court decision. Finally, the court found that the trademark applied only when the red outsole and the rest of the shoe were compared.
This legal battle was pivotal in the discussion of intellectual property in fashion. In some cases, the court protects single color designs. However, this case is an example of public recognition in such decisions.
Adidas with Thom Browne
Adidas, famous for its white three-step logo, recently filed a lawsuit against designer Tom Brown. The company is seeking $8 million in damages. The case first started in It was in 2018, when Brown applied for a trademark for the three-step logo called Grosgrain. But fashion analysts say Brown’s foray into sportswear has also prompted a response from Adidas.
The court presentation became a fashion show in itself. Brown wore his own clothes from the Spring 2023 show at PFW. During court, the entire team wore a Thom Browne collection.
Brown’s winning case hinged largely on nostalgia. He cites growing up in a sporty family and his own sporting background in school. His passion for logos was learned during his time at Ralph Lauren. The court rejected Adidas’ bankruptcy petition.
Brown’s testimony undoubtedly refutes the charges of functionality in grosgrain and spins it into a visual representation of its design aesthetic.
Although the empirical results are only applicable to individual houses or designers, it also raises a philosophical question. Is fashion art? The case can be made by referring to “self-expression” and “creativity”. But without government recognition, the American fashion industry operates in a gray area.
Featured Image via https://www.cnn.com/style/article/adidas-thom-browne-verdict/index.html
[ad_2]
Source link
