Hermès files suit Against LVMH

Summer may be officially over, but things are heating up in the fashion law world. Hermès International has just announced that it it filed suit against LVMH in July for insider trading and manipulating stock prices. This is two years after LVMH revealed that it had accumulated a large percentage of Hermès stocks through cash-settled equity swaps that allowed it to circumvent the usual market rules requiring firms to declare share purchases.

Hermès saw this as an attempt to take control of the company, which prompted it to take two major legal steps to protect itself from what it considers to be an unwelcome suitor. First, it scored a major victory last year when a French court authorized Hermès to group family-owned shares into a nonlisted holding company. The ruling created a safeguard for the Dumas, Puech and Guerrand families' ownership of more than 70 percent of the shares in Hermès International. Now, the maker of the Birkin bag is going directly after LVMH in what is sure to be a clash of the luxury titans. We will be sure to keep you posted on the progress of this case. 

Zatchels' Response to Settlement with Cambridge Satchel Company

After our previous post on the Cambridge Satchel settlement in the infringement suit against Zatchels, Zatchels directly reached out to The Fashion Grid to clarify their position with the following statement:

"Whilst we strongly consider the claim to be speculative and unfounded, with all of the costs and unpleasantness involved with a high court action, we have decided to settle the claim with a payment. This is to avoid a protracted and long drawn out litigation so that we are able to concentrate on our business, which continues to flourish. The designs we have been offering over the last few months will continue to be offered and are not affected by this settlement. It is not in any way relevant to our current trading position. The commercial reality of this type of litigation means it was more attractive to settle with a payment, than to continue to argue, which will serve to detract us as the directors from continuing to grow and support our very successful business.

There are no winners or losers in this case and that’s why it was settled at mediation over three months ago, and not in the High Court. We are very surprised that Cambridge Satchel have decided to release this statement now some months on, we believe this is purely for the brands own personal promotional gain. There are many manufactures in the UK of the traditional satchel all use the same original patterns that have been around for decades including Cambridge Satchel.  Zatchels parent Company have been manufacturing with the same staff for many years and always made leather products and it is these skills that have been applied to making not only satchels but other products that Zatchels offer, and will continue to introduce in the future.

We are sufficiently satisfied with this outcome and now with this behind us we look forward to a long and successful future with Zatchels."

Cambridge Satchel (left) vs. Zatchels (right) 

This was after Julie Deane released the following statement to the The Fashion Law:

"I think there are two points here that are important - one: to imitate a design, product or both shows a lack of originality and should never be supported. The second point is even more despicable, and that is that Leicester Remedials & Sewing (aka Zatchels) was a new manufacturer of ours, a business we were giving work to and training to make the bags. The relationship between designer and manufacturer is built on trust, discussing ideas, designs, customers. To have a manufacturer betray a customer in such an underhand and outright way is worse than mere imitation, it is betrayal. Having said that, it gave me the push to set up Cambridge Satchel's own manufacturing unit, and that has gone from strength to strength, creating jobs and expanding the UK manufacturing base. That is not to say we no longer use the original five manufacturers. We do, as we have ethics and support those who have supported us."

It is true that in any legal dispute, a settlement is not an admission of guilt or liability to the claims made nor should it be considered a victory or a loss for the parties involved. Furthermore, there is one absolute that exists in any legal dispute- there are always two sides to every lawsuit.

Objectively speaking, any manufacturer that takes the designs of one of its customers and produces a similar product line is liable for infringement and breach of contract. Designers must make sure that the terms of any agreement entered into with any manufacturer include confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses that protect the designer's ownership of any intellectual property. While we may never know the exact details of this particular case, there is always a lesson to take from any legal dispute, no matter who was in the wrong.  

David Yurman Claims Kate Moss Copied Campaign

David Yurman isn't too happy with its former campaign girl, Kate Moss. The supermodel has been promoting her jewelry line for Fred stores in France, and the ad-campaign feature a number of photos that David Yurman is claiming are copies of Peter Lindbergh's shots for their campaign from the previous year. While no legal action has been taken, a David Yurman representative has publicly stated that “The Fred campaign is embarrassingly similar to the one David Yurman ran a year ago. When you are a leader in your category, you get used to people copying you. We are confident consumers know the difference.” 

Fred Ad (Above) vs. David Yurman Ad (Below)

While we see the similarity in Kate Moss's bed-head hairstyle and body positions, we're not too convinced that this was a direct copy of the David Yurman campaign. What makes the David Yurman ad campaigns distinctive are the soft, black-and-white shots. The style of photography in the Fred ad campaign is completely different and the differences between the images are significant enough to indicate that no one would confuse the two campaigns. Based off these photographs, what do you think?

David Yurman ad (left) vs. Fred ad (right)

David Yurman ad (left) vs. Fred ad (right)

Bulgari Files Infringement Suit Against Kenneth Jay Lane

Earlier this month, Bulgari filed  a complaint in a federal court in Manhattan against Kenneth Jay Lane for copyright infringement, design patent infringement, and unfair competition, claiming that the New York based jewelry designer copied its rings and bracelets without its permission. Bulgari is seeking unspecified damages and a court order to end the sale of the allegedly infringing jewelry. 

Bulgari Serpenti Bracelet

It should be no surprise that Bulgari would file suit against the U.S. based designer. First, thanks in part to the case-precedent we covered in our previous post, Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, jewelry has valid copyright protection in the United States. Considered to be a form of miniature sculpture, jewelry generally can satisfiy the originality requirement.

Kenneth Jay Lane Bracelet

Based off these images, the Italian-based designer, who launched its Serpenti collection in the 1960s, does have a valid claim for copyright protection. Moreover, the court will likely find infringement since, in Bulgari's own words, their jewelry includes "design elements and features that have become synonymous with Bulgari in the eyes of the public, consumers and the luxury goods industry." Second, Bulgari is part of the LVMH group and we know how sensitive their fashion law radar is for any kind of intellectual property infringement. We here at TFG will be sure to cover the progress of this case. 

Cambridge Satchel Settles Lawsuit against Zatchel Copycats

The Cambridge Satchel Company-the creator of one of our favorite "it" bags- has just won a settlement for its suit against former manufacturer-turned-copycat brand Zatchels. In 2008, Julie Deane started the Cambridge Satchel Company in England. As demand increased beyond Deane's production capability, she decided to contract some of her manufacturing to Leicester Remedials and Sewing.  In 2011, Deane discovered that Leicester Remedials had introduced near-identical products and was selling them as "Zatchels."

Cambridge Satchel vs. Zatchel

Shortly after, Deane filed an infringement suit for violation of intellectual property rights in U.K.'s High Court. She claimed that Zatchels was using her designs, patterns, and leathers in its line of bags. "I want to raise awareness of the misconduct that has taken place and to assure our customers that we will stick to our principles and continue to create the best products for them," Deane said in a statement regarding the settlement. "Despite this negative experience, The Cambridge Satchel Company remains committed to manufacturing in the UK." The company decided to settle for an undisclosed sum "to avoid a protracted and long drawn out litigation so that we are able to concentrate on our business." Whether Zatchel's will have to cease production of the bags remains unclear. Nevertheless, we here at TFG are pleased to see another settlement favoring the originality and creative endeavors of a brand like The Cambridge Satchel Company. And at price points ranging from 100-200 dollars, we never understood the incentive to produce knock-off versions anyways.