Topshop Works With Freddy For Some Flashdance Inspired Workout Gear

Topshop will be releasing its collaborative line of workout wear with Italian designer Freddy Sept. 1, 2009. As you can tell from the photo of the line above, Jennifer Beals called and she wants her dancewear back. (Please see below)

Gwyneth Paltrow Enters the Fray

Gwyneth Paltrow has decided to enter the fashion industry's world with a collaborative effort for Zoe's Tees that will be sold exclusively in the UK for the retailer Matches .

I am just wondering whether it will bother her if her stuff gets knocked off like it did when Matt Stone appeared in a knockoff of her famous Ralph Lauren pink dress (please see above). Gwyneth has been pretty vocal about her annoyances about that singular dress being knocked off. The only question is; how does someone knock off boring grandma generic clothing? (please see her clothing line below).

LVMH Wins Damages In Counterfeit Suit

While this case may not be the most scintillating, it was a case that served as proof that when you get notice of a counterfeit lawsuit, you should probably respond! LVMH commenced a counterfeit lawsuit against Carducci Leather Fashions, Inc back in 2004 for infringing upon its Epi Leather trademark. As you can tell by the photo above, the Epi Leather trademark is the unique striations in the leather. The leather is cowhide that is dyed all the way through for a durable bag that lasts.

LVMH had settled their suit with Carducci back in 2006. LVMH discovered that Carducci was supplied these alleged infringing items by a company called Bonini Italian Handbags, Inc, LVMH added the corporation to the suit. While LVMH managed to settle out of court with Carducci back in 2006, Bonini failed to respond to the suit. As a result, a default judgment was entered against Bonini.

Judge John Keenan in the United States District Court in Manhattan entered the default judgment which included $100,000 per infringing item for a total of $400,000 in damages as well as close to $6,000 in attorney's fees.

The case was closed on August 19, 2009.

When Designers Can't Beat Them, They Join Them

Rachel Nasvik is a designer who has taken an unorthodox approach to piracy....she has joined forces with the pirates themselves. She has teamed up with certain purveyors of knockoffs in places such as Broadway and Canal Streets in order to sell her AUTHENTIC wares....at KNOCKOFF prices.

Ms. Nasvik works with her own marketing team in order to tell her followers on Twitter where her authentic wares will be for that day. While Ms. Nasvik suffered a loss for selling her own wares for ten dollars a piece, she was amazed at how many fans and followers she had. From the first tweet, it only took 8 minutes for her eight bags to be sold. That meant that there are a lot of people who are following Ms. Nasvik's tweets about her brand.

Her move also created brand awareness. The fact that people considered her line of bags well known enough to be knocked off is a marketing feat not accomplished by many.

You can check out Ms. Nasvik's line of bags here:

www.rachelnasvik.com

It Seems Like Everything You See In Vegas Is Fake

It seems that Chanel Inc. thinks that not all things in Vegas glitter with equal glitz and glam. They are slamming a lawsuit in Nevada against a Las Vegas based company called Top Modea Purses Inc.

Chanel Inc. says that Top Modea Inc. had infringed on its trademark through advertising and selling counterfeit purses that carry the Chanel trademark logo. The company also claims that there is likelihood of consumer confusion (potential Chanel customers may be scammed thinking that they are buying the "real deal") and also trademark dilution (the quality of the purses and wallets sold with the infringing logo are of inferior quality compared to the actual Chanel merchandise).

"Defendants' counterfeit goods are of a quality substantially different than that of Chanel's genuine goods," the document submitted by Chanel Inc claims.

"The net effect of the defendants' actions will be to result in the confusion of consumers who will believe the defendants' counterfeit goods are genuine goods originating from and approved by Chanel."

You can read the actual document submitted by Chanel Inc here:
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2009/08/06/chanel0806.pdf

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?