Artist Creates Louis Vuitton Waffle-Maker

In the fashion law world, Louis Vuitton is not a force you want to mess with. The LV logo is a trademark that the brand relentlessly protects. As the logo develops an almost pop culture iconic status, many manufacturers have come to think that they can slap it onto any type of product without any intellectual property repercussions. For example, the company went after Haute Diggity Dog, LLC for producing a parody dog chew toy with the cheeky name "Chewy Vuitton." The product mimicked the shape, design and color of Louis Vuitton's Murakami handbags, but instead of LV, the toy's pattern included a stylized CV. The Fourth Circuit found that Haute Diggity Dog's use of CHEWY VUITON and its associated pattern to be a parody, and therefore not liable for trademark infringement.

In another example, The Fashion Law reported on Machine Guns Vegas' Louis Vuitton grip handgun, no doubt produced to cater to female gun owners. Since the post, the gun is no longer for sale on the site. But in this case, the usage of the trademark did not fall under any exceptions for infringement, and Machine Guns Vegas would no doubt have been found liable had they continued producing the gun.

But what about art? Earlier this summer, Los Angeles-based artist Andrew Lewicki designed a waffle-maker that embosses waffles with the iconic LV logo. The waffle-maker was created for exhibition and not for sale. This poses the following question: whether the use of a trademark for the purposes of art and not production constitutes trademark infringement? For example, how did Andy Warhol get away with his famous Campbell's Soup cans?

The lack of consumer confusion is generally what protects artists from being found liable for trademark infringement. Campbell's didn't have any reason to believe that their consumers would accidentaly buy Warhol's paintings when they meant to buy soup, so there's no competition there, and nothing unfair or infringing about Warhol's use. Similarly, Andrew Lewicki should be in the clear with Louis Vuitton, especially in light of the fact that the waffle-maker was created solely for exhibition and not for production. Let's hope Lewicki didn't inspire any kitchen-ware companies to create an LV waffe-maker for actual sale. We have no doubt LV wouldn't see the artistic value in that.  

Over 20,000 Counterfeit Louboutins Seized

This week in Los Angeles, 20,457 pairs of counterfeit Christian Louboutin shoes, worth an estimated $57,490, were seized from a shipment from China at the Long Beach seaport complex. According to the U.S. Customs and Border protection, manufacturers estimated that the shoes had estimated retail price of 18 million dollars. While there has been much debate over the red sole as a viable trademark in the courts, the U.S. Customs and Border didn't seem to question it, stating that the reason they decided to seize the shoes was because “[t]hey [saw] a trademark protected by U.S. law.” Perhaps this is a statement worth quoting in the courts for the appeal of the case against YSL. 

Lululemon Files Patent Suit against Calvin Klein

While patents have been noted as being very difficult to obtain in apparel and fashion, they have been a hot topic this summer with sporting companies. Lululemon Athletica is the second company to file a patent suit, accusing Calvin Klein of infringing three design patents for yoga pants. The patents include U.S. Patent Nos. D645,644, D661,872, and D662,281.

In the complaint, Lululemon claimed that certain Calvin Klein bottoms marketed under the “Performance” brand infringe the ‘644 Patent, the ‘872 Patent, and the ‘281 Patent. Plaintiff also identified the accused products as Style No. 11516241, "performance knee length running tights," and Style No. 11516196, “performance compression overlapping waistband pants” that were being sold on the company's website (shown above). Since the suit has been filed, the accused products have been removed from the Calvin Klein website. Our guess would be Calvin Klein is going to either challenge the validity of the patents or settle the case. Since patents are such a novelty in fashion law, we here at The Fashion Grid will be sure to follow up on the progress of this case.

Alexander Wang Labor Lawsuit Dismissed

On Monday, New York federal court Judge Harold Baer dismissed a multi-million dollar lawsuit we reported on in a previous post that had been brought on by former employees claiming that Alexander Wang’s local factory was a sweatshop and that the fashion brand was in violation of a number of labor laws, including those governing overtime. Wang vehemently denied the allegations, claiming that the suit was brought on by former disgruntled employees. The details of the parties' settlement remain undisclosed, but both sides did agree to have the court dismiss the case with prejudice, where once dismissed, neither side can file an appeal. Looks like this case is closed for Alexander Wang!

FDA Takes Issue with Nail Color Trend

One of the trends that stands out in my mind from my high school days was Hard Candy nail polish, which at the time could only be found at Bloomingdale's. It was the first nail polish line that I can remember coming out with the most unusual and wide array of colors- green, yellow, etc. The crazy trend eventually gave way to the dark hues and neutrals that have been my personal favorite for some time. While I admit that a pop of color is refreshing, especially in the summer, the palette of nail colors that has been the booming trend in the last year has become both fashionably and legally questionable. Legally because the FDA is now taking note that some of the colors, especially the neon polishes, contain color additives the have not been not approved. 

In order for a color additive to clear FDA's standards, it must meet composition and purity requirements, and there must be a reasonable certainty that the color additive will not be harmful when the product containing such additive is used for its intended purpose.  After receiving approval, the additive is issued a certification lot number and can be used for their specified uses. Apparently a true neon color contains color additives that do not pass FDA's standards and U.S. companies are not taking the time to get approval before producing and selling these colors. Some companies, like OPI, have complied by not creating "true" neon colors, but close replicas that do not require the additive. While we are digging some of the hues that we've seen around, if the FDA is questioning this trend, perhaps we've gone a bit overboard.