<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>David Erikson &#187; Knockoffs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.daviderikson.com/tag/knockoffs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.daviderikson.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 17:13:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>McQueen v. Madden: Using Trade Dress Law To Fight Fashion Knockoffs</title>
		<link>http://www.daviderikson.com/2009/11/mcqueen-v-madden-using-trade-dress-aw-to-fight-fashion-knockoffs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.daviderikson.com/2009/11/mcqueen-v-madden-using-trade-dress-aw-to-fight-fashion-knockoffs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>erikson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog Entries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Knockoffs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.daviderikson.com/?p=35</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s extremely difficult to fight fashion knockoffs in court. For [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s extremely difficult to fight fashion knockoffs in court. For reasons that puzzle non-lawyers (and some lawyers), copyright law doesn&#8217;t protect against copying fashion design. Soon, I&#8217;ll do a post about the Designer Piracy Protection Act, proposed legislation that&#8217;s floundering around Congress which would provide for some copyright-ish protection for apparel design. But there&#8217;s also a trend (get it?) towards using &#8220;trade dress&#8221; law as a weapon. Trade dress law is closely related to trademark law, which protects against rivals using your company&#8217;s name or logo to pass of their products as your own, or to confuse into thinking thinking their goods or services are related to yours.</p>
<p>Trade dress law mainly protects packaging&#8211;packaging that the public comes to associate with a particular company. But without any better weapon, fashion designers are using trade dress to protect against their imitators. That&#8217;s possible because the notion of packaging (which is what trade dress law protects) is quite vague. In one of the leading cases, the Supreme Court held that the décor of a chain of Mexican restaurants was a type of trade dress. Other cases have held that trade dress encompasses a product&#8217;s &#8220;total look and feel.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, that was quite enough for fashion lawyers to jump in and claim essentially that an article of clothing is one big piece of packaging. And if that&#8217;s true, and if the public comes to associate that packaging with a particular line, then trade dress law should work in fighting knockoffs. It only works for one a line&#8217;s signature styles.</p>
<p>Later I&#8217;ll write about some trade dress cases I&#8217;ve brought against imitation fashion. But this post is about the latest example of the trend: Alexander McQueen&#8217;s recent lawsuit against Steve Madden for a particularly egregious shoe knockoff. You can see pictures in the formal lawsuit documents, which you can download <a href="http://www.daviderikson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/McQueen3.pdf">here</a>. But suffice to say, its a pretty blatant and exact rip-off. The thing to notice about the case is this: McQueen&#8217;s lawyers have to go to great lengths to describe the boot design as one that the public has come to associate with his brand (in the way they do a trademark). Otherwise, Madden would be free to copy. McQueen lawyers do this by talking about branding, promotion, press, etc. Here&#8217;s what the attorneys write:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The Faithful Bootie Trade Dress is, in and of itself, highly distinctive, and has been so recognized by consumers and the fashion trade. In addition, as a result of the uninterrupted, and continuing, promotion and sale of the &#8220;Faithful Bootie&#8221; shoe, and the widespread media attention that has been devoted to the &#8220;Faithful Bootie&#8221; shoe, including photographs of celebrities such as Lindsay Lohan, Mary-Kate Olsen and Rihanna wearing the &#8220;Faithful Bootie&#8221; shoe, the Faithful Bootie Trade Dress has acquired distinctiveness, and, accordingly, has developed a strong secondary meaning among consumers and the trade, immediately identifying AMQ as the exclusive source of products bearing the Faithful Bootie Trade Dress, and signifying goodwill of incalculable value.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Unfortunately, fashion designers who have been knocked off often can&#8217;t make this kind of claim. And even here, its probably a bit of a stretch to say the public associates this particular show with Alexander McQueen. Again, it&#8217;s a lot easier when what is copied is a signature style.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.daviderikson.com/2009/11/mcqueen-v-madden-using-trade-dress-aw-to-fight-fashion-knockoffs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

