The fashion industry in 2024 continued to be full of exciting legal cases that raised a number of important questions about intellectual property protection. Below are five cases that have received a lot of attention and could set a precedent for the future. Written by Bernadett Dóra Kiss, attorney at law at Oppenheim Law Firm.
1 Griffin v. Guess?, Inc. & Macy's: Are graffiti under copyright protection?
In January 2024, graffiti artists filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against fashion brand Guess and department store chain Macy's. The lawsuit claimed that Guess had used the graffiti on its clothing without permission. The plaintiffs argued that the graffiti were copyrighted as individual, original works of art and that Guess should have sought permission to use them. In addition to copyright infringement, the plaintiffs also claimed reputational damage, alleging that customers were misled into believing that they had collaborated with the brand. This, in turn, created a perception in the art world that the plaintiffs had been commercialised, resulting in a loss of credibility and independent creative status.
The key question in this case is whether the graffiti is copyrightable? The protectability depends on whether the graffiti is sufficiently unique. If the graffiti has an individual, original character and its author is identifiable, as in this case, then its use as a copyrighted work may be authorised by its author. If the graffiti is copyrighted but the author is unknown, its use as an orphan work may be authorised by the public authority (in Hungary, the National Intellectual Property Office authorises the use of orphan works). However, there are simple inscriptions, called tags, which do not represent an individual original character. The original author of this type of graffiti is unknown, and it is used to express membership of a community. Such graffiti is not protected by copyright and can be used without permission. Protectability is not affected by the fact that the graffiti was created in a public space, possibly illegally.
[Image source: https://hyperallergic.com/870208/street-artists-say-guess-is-copying-their-tags/]
The case also highlighted the need for large companies to respect the intellectual property rights of smaller artists and not to use them without permission.
2. Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Hailey Bieber: Trademark dispute over the name “Rhode”
Hailey Bieber, American model and media personality, launched her own beauty brand, Rhode, in 2022, which quickly became popular among the younger generation. However, the use of the Rhode name did not get off to a smooth start, as the New York-based fashion company Rhode-NYC, LLC - which had been operating under the name for a decade - sued Bieber's beauty company for trademark infringement.
Rhode-NYC claimed that Bieber's mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers, who would associate the "Rhode" mark with them due to its long standing use, and that its trademark protecting the "Rhode" mark had priority over Bieber's use of it. Court documents show that Bieber's team had previously contacted the plaintiff about purchasing the trademark, but was rebuffed by Rhode-NYC. Bieber subsequently filed a trademark application for the "Rhode" sign, for among other, skin care products. Rhode-NYC argued that Bieber's trademark would lead to a phenomenon known as "reverse confusion", where Bieber's trademark, as a younger, more heavily marketed player, would tarnish their reputation and make it appear that they were infringing Bieber's rights, rather than the other way around.
The parties finally settled the dispute out of court in July 2024. Interestingly, Rhode-NYC recently announced that it would cease operations. This is good news for Bieber, as it will allow her to use the "Rhode" sign without restrictions in the future, and may also give her the opportunity to use the brand not only in the cosmetics industry, but also in the fashion industry.
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Brunello Cucinelli USA: Protection of the iconic pocket tab
In early 2024, Levi Strauss filed a lawsuit against Italian luxury brand Brunello Cucinelli in federal court in Oakland, California, to protect the iconic pocket tab. According to Levi Strauss, Cucinelli marketed apparel products with pocket tags that could be confused with the pocket tags of the Farmer King, which have been trademarked since 1938. Levi Strauss claimed that consumers were likely to confuse the pocket tags and that Cucinelli's use of them was damaging the reputation of its trademark.
The court was asked to rule on the similarity of Cucinelli's brownish-grey pocket tags to Levi Strauss' iconic pocket tags, which are used in different colours, including red and brown.
Image source: https://www.htt.hk/?p=184422
This is not the first time Levi Strauss has taken legal action to defend his pocket tags. In recent years, for example, it has filed similar lawsuits against Yves Saint Laurent and Kenzo, which ended in an out-of-court settlement. The case against Brunello Cucinelli was also settled in May 2024, with the parties mutually agreeing not to bring proceedings against each other.
Brunello Cucinelli has become a major player in the "quiet luxury" trend in recent years, particularly through the television series Succession, which emphasises the minimalist style of the luxury brand. The use of pocket ears therefore raises not only the question of confusion, but also of how luxury brands that rely on the absence of flashy logos can differentiate themselves in the market.
4. Thom Browne's victory over stripes against Adidas
Thom Browne, an iconic figure in the luxury industry, has scored a victory over Adidas in a trademark battle in the UK. The court has rejected Adidas' claim that Thom Browne's four-stripe design could be confused with its three-stripe trademark. According to the ruling, the average consumer can easily distinguish between the two designs if they pay sufficient attention.
Image source: https://www.nssmag.com/en/fashion/26868/adidas-thom-browne-lawsuit
Adidas has unsuccessfully tried to prevent Thom Browne from obtaining trademark protection for the four-stripe design in several countries, including the United States and Germany. After these attempts failed, Adidas finally filed a lawsuit in the UK.
Thom Browne, whose brand is known for its clean-cut lines and four-stripe motif, welcomed the decision. The brand's CEO Rodrigo Bazan stressed that this victory further strengthens the consistency of the judgments in the US and Germany, in which the courts ruled in Thom Browne's favour. Adidas also sought to turn the ruling in its favour, stressing that the court had recognised the strong distinctiveness of the three-stripe mark and indicated that it would not rule out further action.
5 Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around: resale of luxury goods
In February 2024, Chanel won a lawsuit in a US court against luxury retailer What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA). The judgment found that WGACA had committed trademark infringement, unfair competition and deceptive advertising.
Chanel filed the lawsuit back in 2018, accusing WGACA of selling counterfeit Chanel products and selling products that had not passed Chanel's quality control. The defendant defended itself by claiming that all the products it sold were genuine. It also invoked the principle of exhaustion of rights, which ensures the resale of products without the consent of the original seller.
Image source: https://www.thefashionlaw.com/chanel-what-goes-around-comes-around-are-still-fighting-over-the-resellers-alleged-sale-of-counterfeit-bags/