Tag: Copyright

1
Mind the Gap: Patagonia Sues Gap For Copying Fleece Design
2
Just Seen to be Green? CMA Launches Investigation Into Three Fashion Companies
3
UNICOLORS v. H&M: COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION VALIDITY
4
When Is an Office Chair Design Famous? U.S. Supreme Court Won’t Hear Herman Miller’s Trade Dress Appeal Regarding the Eames Chair
5
Neoprene Tote Bags: Watertight Not Copyright
6
Photographer’s Claim of Copyright Infringement Over Use of Embedded Instagram Photo Still Alive
7
Don’t Bank-sy on Trade marks: Banksy loses EU trade mark due to “bad faith”

Mind the Gap: Patagonia Sues Gap For Copying Fleece Design

High-end outdoor clothing brand Patagonia Inc is taking on fast fashion retailer Gap for copying its “iconic” fleece jacket design. Patagonia Inc has filed court proceedings in the Federal Court.

In a complaint filed on 22 November 2022, Patagonia alleges that Gap willfully and deliberately copied the fleece design through the creation and sale of its “Mockneck Pullover” jackets, mimicking the flap pocket and rectangular logo of Patagonia’s classic “Snap-T” fleece jackets (both shown below).

Patagonia “Snap-T” Pullover Fleece
Gap Product
Read More

Just Seen to be Green? CMA Launches Investigation Into Three Fashion Companies

The trend of regulators cracking down on misleading green claims or the so-called “greenwashing” continues this week. In the latest development, on Friday 29 July 2022, the British competition watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), launched an investigation into the eco-friendly claims of retailers Asos, Boohoo, and Asda.

Read More

UNICOLORS v. H&M: COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION VALIDITY

By Susan Kayser and Betsy Byra

On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the ongoing case of Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., No. 20-915.  With a nearly $1 million copyright verdict on the line, pattern manufacturer Unicolors, Inc.’s (“Unicolors”) fate is now at the Supreme Court to decide whether courts should refer copyright registration validity challenges to the Copyright Office where there is a known misrepresentation in the registration, but no evidence of intent to defraud.

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

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

Photographer’s Claim of Copyright Infringement Over Use of Embedded Instagram Photo Still Alive

User beware – you may be held to a social media platform’s terms of use – or not. Most people are aware that by using a social media platform, they give up some rights to the content that they share. What rights and to what extent depends on the platform and the specific terms of use.

Read More

Don’t Bank-sy on Trade marks: Banksy loses EU trade mark due to “bad faith”

Banksy’s trade mark for one of his most famous artistic designs has been declared invalid by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (the EUIPO) on the grounds that it was filed in bad faith. The EUIPO finding him having engaged in “inconsistent with honest practices” in his attempt to protect his trade mark. A full copy of the decision can be found here.

The EUIPO said Banksy was attempting to use trade mark law to protect his artwork from being used commercially by third-parties because he couldn’t copyright it and maintain his anonymity. This decision highlights that the court will take a dim view of anyone – even famous artists – attempting to find a loophole in the law.

Read More

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.