Prevalence of Counterfeits Inspire a Museum

(Photo Courtesy of Christian Science Monitor taken by Tibor Krausz)

Attorney Clemence Gautier of Tilleke & Gibbins, a Bangkok-based international law firm specializing in intellectual property theft poses with some counterfeit goods. The law firm is trying to raise awareness about the wide array of counterfeits with its own museum in Bangkok.

The museum is called the Bangkok's Museum of Counterfeit Goods. It features over 1,500 items that range from knockoff chocolates to knockoff scooters. The law firm hopes that the museum which is incorporated into their office in Bangkok will serve to educate individuals about the dangers of piracy.

Gautier and her colleagues want consumers to know that by buying knockoffs, they are contributing to criminal gangs that use child labor, and use their profits from counterfeits to fuel drug rings, prostitution and a myriad of other crimes.

Since the recession has hit, the sales of counterfeit goods has increased steadily. It is likely to hit the trillion dollar mark by the end of this year and has been more profitable than the drug industry for a few years already.

The scary thing is how many items are knocked off. It ranges from toothpaste to sneakers. Sometimes these knockoffs can mean the difference between life and death. When individuals inadvertently buy knockoff drugs, they can suffer if those drugs are not what they seem.

Interpol has reported that profits from knockoffs support terrorist groups: "North African radical fundamentalist groups in Europe, al-Qaeda and Hizballah all derive income from counterfeiting," John Newton, an Interpol officer specializing in intellectual-property crime, told the London Times in 2005 when it came to light. "This crime has the potential to become the preferred source of funding for terrorists."

"Statistically, 1 out of every 10 products on sale is a fake," says David Lyman, the firm's American chairman.

This statistic is a global one. It is not a matter of just well established companies trying to save their profits, but it is a matter of consumer protection. When you protect the market from illicit knockoffs, you protect the consumer who may not necessarily be aware of that he/she are buying.

AAFA Rallies Against the Proposed Design Piracy Prohibition Act

(Photo by Getty Images)

The American Apparel and Footwear Association has voiced concern over the proposed Design Piracy Prohibition act in a letter to members of the U.S. House and Senate Judiciary Committees. AAFA cites that the recession has already hurt this industry. If the House and Senate pass this piece of legislation, it may threaten to make things worse:

"When consumers are faced with tough economic choices, clothes and shoes are often the first thing they stop buying,” said AAFA Board of Directors Chair Carol J. Hochman, CEO of Triumph Apparel Marketing. “This legislation does nothing to help the consumers and apparel and footwear producers who are hurting in this financial downturn. In reality, this bill would raise the cost of apparel and footwear, reduce consumer choice, and prevent stylish goods from getting to store shelves. This week's letter is important because it shows our nation’s decision makers that this bill is lose-lose for everyone."

AAFA tries to make it clear that while they do not support this proposed piece of legislation, that they do support the intellectual property rights of designers:

"If this bill provided any meaningful intellectual property protections for the fashion industry as supporters claim, why are so many industry mainstays against it?" asked Peter J. Gabbe, COO of Carole Hochman Design Group and former AAFA Board of Directors Chairman. "Our industry fully supports strong intellectual property protections, but this bill fails to provide any. The only protections it provides are for the established and well-recognized designers who have the legal resources to stave off any competition while holding a monopoly on inspiration."

I don't think I necessarily agree with AAFA's claim that most people in the fashion industry are against this proposed piece of legislation. When you have an organization with members such as Tommy Hilfiger and Michael Kors (who was caught in a knockoff lawsuit), it is easy to understand why AAFA is against it. If your constituents are profiting off of knockoffs of other designers, why in the world would you want to pass legislation that would prevent you from making money?

NYC's MTA Make a Big Deal About Branding

While I generally try to stay neutral about my blog posts, I am moved to write a little more passionately about this particular news piece. For those that do not know, I am a practicing Muslim woman. As such a woman, I wear a simple piece of garment on my head known as hijab. I do so not to create a political statement, because I think it looks cool, my father/brothers/husband forced me, or any other random reason. I do it because I believe in it.

It saddens me to see that the Metro Transit Authority (MTA) in my hometown of New York City has made a big deal about this in regards to its own employees. I am a supporter of branding, but when it singles out certain individuals and seems to be blatant bigotry, I am not a fan:

"Backed by a majority of the City Council, transit workers who wear turbans for religious reasons demanded Tuesday that their MTA stop forcing them to put its logo on their headwear.

'This policy is as backwards as you can possibly imagine,' said City Councilman John Liu (D-Queens) at a press conference at City Hall. Liu was one of 27 City Council members who sent a letter to New York City Transit, urging a policy change."

It is important to note that this particular MTA practice allows other workers to wear non branded baseball caps and yarmulkes. The branded headwear is geared towards women who wear hijab or Sikhs who wear turbans. You can read the rest of this news story at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/16/2009-06-16_turbanwearing_transit_workers_demand_mta_.html

Trovata Strikes Back

The lawsuit is not over yet. A court date has been tentatively scheduled in October. Both sides have confirmed that the retrial will take place some time in October. We will see whether Frank Colucci's arguments that Forvever 21 violated Trovata's trade dress rights will prevail. Stay tuned!

Another Reason To LOVE SCOTUS Appointee Sotomayor!

While the mudslinging for the Supreme Court of the United States nominee has been tough, I found another reason to love Sonia Sotomayor. She used to be an intellectual property rights attorney. And she was not just any IP attorney: she used to fight against counterfeits for Fendi! Not only did she do corporate work, but she loved chasing after the bad guys:

"I was crouched in the van, waiting for things to clear up, and Sonia goes running out with the investigators," Skulnik said. "She got a thrill out of the cops and robbers stuff. It's not something you expect to see from a corporate attorney."

Check out the rest of the article on Hon. Sotomayor here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202431039295

I am excited about the SCOTUS getting some action now!

NYT Introduces Me to An Artistic Genius

Artwork by Cyril Duval, better known as Item Idem.

I was perusing the New York Times when I noticed this little blurb by Horacio Silva about the artist Item Idem. His artwork deals with trademarks and pop culture. The photo above is from the artist's website.

You can read the NYT blurb here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/fashion/07moment.html?ref=fashion

DVF Settles For Mercy

Diane von Furstenberg has reached an out of court settlement with the designers from the label Mercy. Mercy is a Canadian designer label. The two designers of Mercy are Jennifer Halchuk and Richard Lyle. They brought a claim that style elements from a jacket in their collection were used by Ms. von Furstenberg in the Garden Zaria jacket in her recent Spring collection.

When the similarities between the jackets was initially discovered, Ms. von Furstenberg issued a public apology and reached out the designers directly in order to resolve the matter. The designer on her team that had introduced the jacket was fired.

The designer Jennifer Halchuk appreciated these measures: “I greatly appreciate DVF coming forward to resolve this issue in a such a forthright manner and for acknowledging our ownership of the jacket design. We are very pleased to have successfully resolved this dispute in a manner that protects our design.”

Ms. von Furstenberg is well known in the fashion industry to for lobbying in favor of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act which is a proposed piece of legislation that would enable fashion designers to protect their works as copyrighted works for a period of time.

“While this is an isolated instance for DVF, it is unfortunate that way too many others intentionally build businesses by stealing the work of other designers,” said Ms. von Furstenberg. “The design process is vulnerable and in need of urgent reform so companies like Mercy can be protected. Now is the time to pass the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, and we must all do a better job teaching the next generation of designers and the thousands of designers who work in industry that copying is wrong.”

Stella McCartney Inks a Deal With Gap, Inc.

Gap, Inc. has announced a deal with Stella McCartney to create collections for its Baby Gap and Gap Kids lines. The collections are slated to be launched later this year in its stores in the U.S., U.K., France, Japan, Ireland, Canada, and on its website.

While McCartney has said she has always wanted to design clothing for children, this will be her first foray into this market:

'For years I’ve wanted to create a collection for kids,' McCartney said. 'It’s something I’ve often been asked about. I believe that this one-off collaboration will be a great way for customers to be able to participate in the Stella McCartney brand. I believe that kids’ clothing should be more accessibly priced, which is particularly important at the moment, given the current climate.'

I applaud Stella McCartney for viewing this current market as an opportunity to reach out to a larger consumer base. As I have written before, I support legislation which protects designers' creative intellectual work but I do think that designers can work with consumers by versioning.

Versioning provides a decent solution to piracy by allowing designers to create pieces that are their own creative work at lower price points (Target and H&M work with designers all of the time to do this). This allows potential counterfeit goods consumers to purchase legitimate designer wear at a price point that the consumer can afford. It allows the designer to profit from mass production rather than giving pirates more incentive to create knockoffs. It also allows smaller trendier designers to get more of a consumer base so that they are not put in the position that Trovata found itself in.

Translation: The more consumers are aware of your name, designs, and style, the harder it is for places like Forever21 knockoff off your work. Smaller designers can claim trade dress more effectively because likelihood of consumer confusion would be more apparent.

I can't wait to see what Stella churns out for Gap!

Forever 21 Case Ends in Mistrial

It seems that the culmination of the trial we have all been watching ended in a little bit of a letdown a few days back. While I actually knew about the trial earlier, I have been busy with non blogging things.

Here is what the rest of you may have missed (from The WWD Blog):

"After two years of legal wrangling, days of testimony and thousands of pages of court documents, Trovata and Forever 21 are back at the starting line because of a mistrial over allegations the cheap-chic retailer knowingly copied Trovata's designs.
The conclusion of the trial, which had the potential to clarify intellectual property rights in a time when knockoffs of runway looks often find their way into specialty chains before the originals, didn't bring closure, but Trovata accomplished what design houses with bigger budgets and bigger names could not. It forced $1.7 billion Forever 21 into court to answer questions about mimicking looks from designer collections.

And the game isn't over. Trovata has indicated it will seek a new trial.

The juror on the panel of six men and two women who blocked a Trovata win spoke with conviction after the mistrial. Stephen Sharp said design elements in Trovata garments weren't widely known and, therefore, any similar merchandise in Forever 21 stores didn't confuse the public about the brand.

'The jury is placed under difficult circumstances to be ad hoc fashion experts and the law is somewhat vague and contradictory,' he said. 'There is no impartial body analogous to the patent office. All of these things made it a difficult exercise to go through.'"

I wish Trovata all the best. This trial indicates the absolute necessity to have at least some minimal protection for designers. It is because U.S. law is so opposed to designers' rights (because of the fear that it will inhibit growth in the market) that designers such as Trovata have to argue under trade dress (which may not be the most convincing argument).