Author - Liz Bodey

1
French Framework for “Kidfluencers” – Yet Another Undertaking for Online Platforms
2
Fashion Law Update – November 2021 edition
3
Australian active wear business fined AU$5 million for making false and misleading COVID-19 apparel claims
4
Mike Tyson Sues Australian Streetwear Brand Culture Kings
5
“All Aboard” As Guerlain Departs From the Norm: The General Court of the EU Finds Distinctive Character in Boat Hull Shaped Lipstick Packaging
6
Fashion Law Update
7
Riding On Coat-tails, Doesn’t Come Free: UK High Court Awards Additional Damages for Oh Polly’s Flagrant Infringement of House of CB’s Unregistered Design Rights
8
When Is an Office Chair Design Famous? U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Herman Miller’s Trade Dress Appeal Regarding the Eames Chair
9
Australian Movement Trade Marks: Businesses “Moving” with the Times?
10
Neoprene Tote Bags: Watertight Not Copyright

French Framework for “Kidfluencers” – Yet Another Undertaking for Online Platforms

Through its Act no.2020-1266 dated 19 October 2020 (the Act), the French legislator elected to regulate the commercial exploitation of the images of children aged 16 and under on online platforms (Kidfluencers).

Despite the potentially lucrative consequences of these emerging practices, Kidfluencers operated in a legal vacuum which could have resulted in parents exploiting their children, without the latter reaping any financial benefits or regaining any control of their images upon coming of age.

Read More

Fashion Law Update – November 2021 edition

Fashion is the armor to survive the reality of everyday life

Bill Cunningham

In this edition of Fashion Law, we look at the emerging and evolving trends within the retail, luxury goods and fashion sectors post COVID-19 around the world.

In this edition, we focus on a few themes which include:

  • Navigating a fashion brand’s transition to direct to consumer
  • Important updates for brands selling goods in Europe
  • Managing supply chain risk – the U.S. perspective
  • Consumer Law in Australia
  • What’s happening in fashion intellectual property?
Read More

Australian active wear business fined AU$5 million for making false and misleading COVID-19 apparel claims

The Australian Federal Court has ordered women’s active wear manufacturer and retailer, Lorna Jane Pty Ltd (Lorna Jane), to pay AU$5 million in penalties for making false and misleading representations to consumers, and engaging in conduct liable to mislead the public, in connection with the promotion and supply of its “LJ Shield Activewear”.

Read More

Mike Tyson Sues Australian Streetwear Brand Culture Kings

Mike Tyson, the famous former boxer, has sued Australian streetwear brand Culture Kings and its founders. Mr Tyson alleges the respondents have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law for using his name, nicknames and likeness to sell t-shirts, without his permission. Mr Tyson alleges that Culture Kings’ t-shirts bear images of him, his name as well as his monikers “Iron Mike”, and “Kid Dynamite”.

Read More

“All Aboard” As Guerlain Departs From the Norm: The General Court of the EU Finds Distinctive Character in Boat Hull Shaped Lipstick Packaging

In what will be welcomed by innovative design brands, on 14 July 2021, the General Court of the EU handed down a decision annulling the EUIPO and Board of Appeal’s decisions that a mark filed by Guerlain lacked distinctive character. This decision emphasises that a distinctiveness assessment of a three-dimensional mark must be undertaken by reference to the specifics of common practice in the market for the relevant products.

Read More

Fashion Law Update

“Style is the only thing you can’t buy. It’s not in a shopping bag, a label, or a price tag. It’s something reflected from our soul to the outside world—an emotion.”

Alber Elbaz

In this edition of Fashion Law, we have a huge selection of articles from around the world.

As many countries ease into a new way of living with/post COVID-19, the way we do business has changed. Some businesses managed to expand their offerings going online, while others needed to increase their brand protection to counteract copycats, trade mark and design infringements.

Read More

Riding On Coat-tails, Doesn’t Come Free: UK High Court Awards Additional Damages for Oh Polly’s Flagrant Infringement of House of CB’s Unregistered Design Rights

On 24 February 2021, the UK High Court found that a number of Oh Polly dress designs had infringed the unregistered design rights of its competitor, House of CB. This recent decision confirms the risk of additional damages being awarded if infringers flagrantly copy third party designs, whilst also confirming the difficulties brand owners face in bringing passing off actions based solely on copycat designs.

Read More

When Is an Office Chair Design Famous? U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Herman Miller’s Trade Dress Appeal Regarding the Eames Chair

The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take up Herman Miller, Inc.’s appeal from a Ninth Circuit holding that partially overturned a jury verdict and held that Herman Miller’s popular Eames office chair (average retail price US$1,200) is not “famous” enough to qualify for trade dress dilution protection.[1] The Supreme Court’s denial of Herman Miller’s petition means the Ninth Circuit’s decision will stand.

Read More

Australian Movement Trade Marks: Businesses “Moving” with the Times?

In a technological age where most consumers are receiving their information digitally, brands need to find new ways to engage with consumers. With nine out of ten Australians owning a smart phone and spending on average three hours a day on their devices, consumer engagement by way of multimedia is growing, increasing the popularity of movement trade marks.

The first movement trade mark was registered in Australia in 2002. There are currently 99 registered movement trade marks in Australia.

Read More

Neoprene Tote Bags: Watertight Not Copyright

In the recent judgment State of Escape Accessories Pty Limited v Schwartz [2020] FCA 1606, Justice Davies of the Federal Court of Australia found a fashionable neoprene tote bag was not a “work of artistic craftsmanship” and therefore not an “artistic work” for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (the Act). Since the Court found that copyright did not subsist in the State of Escape bag (the Escape Bag), there was no finding of copyright infringement.

Read More

Copyright © 2020, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.