TFG Exclusive: Case Brief

It's been a while since we've done a case brief post, but we're closing out the week with one. We designed this series to help inform anyone, be it a fashion lawyer or even a fashion designer, on how our courts decide on cases involving fashion. In this post, we present our readers with the following:

Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl, Inc.; 632 F.2d 989

Facts: Barry Kieselstein-Cord is a famous designer and artist who started his namesake line, Kieselstein Cord in the late 1970s. Educated at the Parson School of Design, New York University and the American Craft Institute, the designer is two-time winner of the Council of Fashion Designers of America Award.

His line consists of jewelry, belts, watches, and eyewear. His signature is creating pieces that are considered art objects or miniature sculptures, even to the degree that his work has been accepted into the permanent collections of the Louvre in Paris, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. 

Kieselstein-Cord's designs have been worn by the likes of Tom Hanks, Spike Lee, Oprah Winfrey, Lennox Lewis, Steven Spielberg, T.I., Jay-Z, Vladimir Putin, Eric Clapton, Brooke Shields, Madonna, Janet Jackson, Sir Elton John, Sharon Stone, Bruce Springsteen, Usher, Lenny Kravitz, Whoopi Goldberg, Diane von Furstenberg and Obama. His line is currently sold at Bergdorf Goodman.

Jay-Z in a Kieselstein-Cord Belt Buckle

In 1978, the designer created the Vaquero and Winchester buckles (shown below) as part of a collection inspired by the art nouveau school. The buckle was registered with the Copyright Office in 1980 as "jewelry" and listed as "original sculpture and design." The buckle had great success in the marketplace, selling over 4,000 in a period of four years. So popular, that the defendant decided to produce line-by-line copies of the belt buckle and market them for sale as "BK copy." Plaintiff sued the defendant for copyright and trademark infringement as well as unfair competition. Defendant filed for a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, only to be appealed by the plaintiff.

Issue: The issue here wasn't that the defendant's buckle was a knock-off. There was question as as to whether the defendant's buckles were copies. However, the legal issue was whether plaintiff's buckles were copyrightable since buckles are generally considered utilitarian objects. 

Rule: The general U.S. law is that "useful articles" are not copyrightable. They lack originality or creativity, which is essential to proving a valid copyright. That is why fashion has such a hard time finding copyright protection. In general, buckles are considered useful articles unless there is a feature that can be identified separately from and exist independently of the utilitarian aspect of the buckle itself. In other words, for a useful article to be considered copyrightable, it must have a feature that is special enough to exist independently from the utilitarian part of the object.

Holding:  The court found that the design of the Kieselstein-Cord buckle was such that it was conceptually separable from its utilitarian feature. The design rose to the level of creative art, satisfying the elements of originality and creativtiy that allow something to be copyrightable. The court didn't see this as just another plain-old belt buckle. It considered it akin to a mini-sculpture, as designated in the registration. Therefore, the court found that the plaintiff had a valid copyright and dismissed the motion for summart judgment.

Lesson for designers: Your designs are protected by law if they have artistic, sculptural, or jewelry like features that exist independently from the useful aspect of the design.

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.