Gucci & Forever 21 Battle Over Clothing and Accessory Stripes
In the recent trademark battle between Forever 21 and Gucci, Forever 21 took the first step, filed suit and asked the Court to declare that it does not…
August 24, 2017 at 12:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In the recent trademark battle between Forever 21 and Gucci, Forever 21 took the first step, filed suit and asked the Court to declare that it does not infringe Gucci registrations. According the complaint, Gucci had informed Forever 21 that Gucci believed certain items offered for sale on Forever 21's website infringed Gucci's trademark registrations for the use of green and red stripes and blue and red stripes on clothing and accessories.
Anthoula Pomrening, partner at IP law firm McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff and Chair of the firm's Mechanical & Materials Practice Group, sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss the Gucci and Forever 21 trademark battle. She has been following the story closely and says the practice of filing a declaratory judgement is not uncommon. Companies with strong brands routinely police the use of their trademarks, so it is not surprising that both Adidas and Gucci have contacted Forever 21 concerning their clothing items.
“The litigation may help to define further boundaries on how trademark owners in the fashion industry can protect and extend their brands (for example, to different locations on clothing),” she explained. “Depending upon how the dispute is resolved, trademark owners might file more design patents, while they wait to establish acquired distinctiveness, or use creative ad campaigns to generate source identification for their marks.”
Today, the filing of a declaratory judgment suit is not uncommon in patent and trademark matters due to the nature of such disputes. When a product on the market infringes a party's patent or trademark, the owner of the IP will typically send a letter informing the other party of its IP and asking them to stop selling or making the product. Often there is back and forth between the parties to resolve the dispute without the need to file suit. In some instances, when the alleged infringer wants business certainty on their timetable, that party can preemptively file suit in a jurisdiction of its choice and ask the court to resolve the dispute, therefore starting the judicial process of determining whether the product infringes someone else's rights and lifting any ambiguity over the product.
“Rather than wait to be sued by Gucci, Forever 21 took the first step, filed suit and asked the Court to declare that Forever 21 does not infringe those Gucci registrations,” he said. “By doing so, F21 started the judicial process to resolve this dispute in the court of its choice.”
Without regular policing of trademarks, companies run the risk of unauthorized uses of the trademarks, which could lead to confusion for customers and dilution of the trademarks, per Pomrening. The primary function of a trademark is that it is a source identifier – the more unauthorized uses of a trademark, the less likely the mark will function as a source identifier for the trademark owner.
In fact, Law360 states, “Forever 21 is a so-called fast-fashion company that creates cheaper versions of trending styles by skirting the edges of IP protections.” Adidas and Gucci did what brand owners should do–contact the alleged infringer and attempt to stop the behavior, initially without resorting to litigation.
According to Pomrening, some best practices that companies with strong brands can follow to protect themselves from trademark infringement including: police trademarks on a regular basis,educate marketing department on practices to protect trademarks and actions to take for brand extension and; issue detailed brand use guidelines for the public and partners such as licensees on proper trademark use.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250