TFG Exclusive: Case Brief

The Fashion Grid covers all current fashion law related cases, but ask any fashion lawyer (or any lawyer for that matter), and they'll tell you that case precedent is an integral part of understanding how to apply the law and understanding its development. It's what we read over, and over, and over again in law school. That's why TFG is launching its new "Case Brief" series, where we'll cover a fashion law case in a standard, simplified, law school brief format, but with a bit more lamence edge for our non-lawyer readers. Given our choice for Fashion Quote of the Week and Raf Simons appointment as Dior's new Couturier, we thought it would be fitting to begin this series with the following case.

Christian Dior, et. al v. Frederick L. Milton, et. al.

(July 27, 1956. See 156 N.Y.S. 2d 996) 

• Facts: Plaintiff Christian Dior and several other fashion designers, including Jeanne Lanvin, were accustomed to showing and displaying their new collections to a restrictive and exclusive group that included members of the press, manufacturers, buyers and retailers in the women's apparel industry, and other individuals admitted by express invitation. Those invited were under agreement not to disclose any information on the designs. The plaintiffs did this in an effort to protect the property rights of their designs and maintain exclusivity. The Defendants attended these shows, only to violate the agreement by copying and reproducing the designs and models and selling them in the United States. As a result, Plaintiffs filed an action for damages and injunctive relief against defendants for exploitation of their designs and publication and sale of their sketches. The defendants tried to get out of this one by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a sufficient cause of action (which generally means the plaintiffs have no case) because there is no protection against style piracy or publication's of another's style. 

• Issue: Whether piracy of style is illegal in a case where there has been a disclosure of the style and design to a limited group of people under an agreement that they would not reveal or copy such styles and design.

• Rule: Under the laws of unfair competition, commercial unfairness will be restrained when it appears that there has been a misappropriation, for the commercial advantage of one person, of a benefit or property right belonging to another. In other words, if you palm off someone else's property rights and profit from it, you're in violation of these laws. 

• Decision and Reasoning: Motion dismissed. Plaintiffs had a sufficient cause of action because the laws of unfair competition applied to the facts of this case. Defendants' conduct have injured the Plaintiffs, whose income derives from the uniqueness of their designs and from their reputation. Defendants' have not only profited from the designs without paying the Plaintiffs, but they have reduced the demand for the Plaintiffs original designs. Defendants tried to argue that no property rights were involved, but the judge found that the right to the exclusive use of one's own name and reputation is a property right. Defendants also tried to argue that Plaintiffs abandoned their rights by displaying their designs, but the judge did not buy this either. The Defendants also tried to argue that the injunction is a violation of due process because it restrains trade, but the court found this argument without merit because the Defendants' trade practices is causing great injury to the Plaintiffs, and should therefore be prevented.