Forever 21, Puma Settle Lawsuit Over Copied Fenty Footwear

Rihanna’s Fenty Puma wares are soon to be at the center of one less lawsuit. Puma and Forever 21 have managed to settle the design patent, trade dress, and copyright infringement lawsuit that the German sportswear giant filed against the Los Angeles-based fast fashion company in April 2017, with the parties agreeing to dismiss the case (subject to court approval), according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

While the terms of the parties’ settlement are confidential, the Stipulation to Dismiss Case, which was filed on Wednesday, states that “all claims and defenses in this action shall be dismissed with prejudice,” meaning that Puma cannot refile the case on the same grounds at a later date, and that “all parties [will] bear their own fees and costs.”

The settlement comes just weeks after Forever 21 sought a partial dismissal of the case, arguing that Puma’s design patent claim, which extends to the Fenty Puma Creeper sneaker, should be tossed out, as the design is not new to Puma, and in fact, dates “back decades to the mid-twentieth century.”

Before that, Forever 21 argued that Puma should be taken to task for “misrepresenting material facts” - including who, exactly, designed the shoes - “to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Copyright Office” with its filings for some of the footwear at issue in the case, “thereby committing fraud.”

Puma filed initially filed suit against Forever 21 in the spring of 2017, claiming that the notorious copycat replicated and sold three of the most prominent footwear designs from Rihanna’s sold-out collection for Puma in an attempt to “trade on the substantial goodwill of Puma, Rihanna, and the Fenty shoes.”

 reference

Satanic Temple sues Netflix, Warner Bros over a statue in 'Sabrina'

The Satanic Temple is suing the makers of TV series "The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina" for $50 million (about R714m) over a statue.
Netflix and Warner Bros allegedly copied the group's statue of the goat deity Baphomet in the programme. Both production companies have declined to comment on the lawsuit, the BBC reported.

Satanic Temple said it does not worship Satan, but instead seeks "to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people". The lawsuit, filed on Thursday in New York, claims an icon similar to their own appears in four episodes of the series.
Lucien Greaves, co-founder of the Satanic Temple, posted a tweet comparing their statue with that in the show.

Greaves confirmed the group was going to take legal action against the show's production companies for "appropriating copyright monument design to promote their asinine Satanic Panic fiction".
Founded in 2012, the group does not believe in a supernatural Satan, but instead works to ensure the separation of church and state and holds Satan as a symbol of "opposition to arbitrary authority".

 reference

Lego wins case against Chinese copycats

Lego has won another case against imitators in China, where copies of its colourful plastic toy bricks and figures have been a recurrent problem.
"We believe these decisions are well-founded in the facts and the law, and clearly demonstrate the continued efforts of Chinese authorities to protect intellectual property," Lego chief executive Niels B. Christiansen said in a statement.

The Guangzhou Yuexiu District Court ruled that four companies had "infringed multiple copyrights of the LEGO Group and conducted acts of unfair competition by producing and distributing LEPIN building sets", Lego said.
The court ordered that the companies immediately ceased "producing, selling, exhibiting or in any way promoting the infringing products," it said.

Furthermore, Lego will receive around 4.5 million Chinese yuan ($900,000) in damages.
In a landmark case last year, Lego for the first time succeeded in a copyright competition case in China, where it seeks a bigger slice of a $US43 billion ($60 billion) toys and games market.
The Beijing Higher Court passed a ruling that recognised the Lego logo and name in Chinese as "well-known" trademarks in China, putting the toymaker in a better position to act against infringement of its trademarks.

China is important to Lego, which has seen slow or declining growth in its mature Western European and US markets although China still accounts for less than 10 per cent of group sales.
Lego, an abbreviation of the Danish "leg godt" meaning "play well", plans to open two flagship stores in Shanghai and Beijing and continue its partnership with Chinese internet giant Tencent .


 reference

Louis Vuitton Emerges Victorious In The Face Shop Trademark Infringement Case

Louis Vuitton has emerged victorious in a trademark infringement case against Korean cosmetics company The Face Shop, according to a report by The Korea Times.

Louis Vuitton accused The Face Shop of using its designs following a partnership with US tote brand My Other Bag in 2016. My Other Bag is known for creating imitation designer bags for brands such as YSL and Celine. Louis Vuitton also started that the parody bags undermined US registered trademark and copyrights.

Despite The Face Shop arguing that its products were a parody, the Seoul District Court ordered the company to remove the Louis Vuitton-designed products off shelf and pay a fine of 50 million won.

The court declared that the use of the Louis Vuitton-designed bags were different to how The Face Shop used other My Other Bag’s parody products.

 reference

Kylie Jenner is Being Sued for Allegedly Copying Another Beauty Brand's Packaging, Trademark

Kylie Jenner and her company Kylie Cosmetics are being sued … again. This time, the reality television star-turned-budding makeup mogul has been hit with an interesting trademark action, in which fellow beauty brand Sheree Cosmetics claims that Jenner has run afoul of the law by using its trademark-protected “Born To Sparkle” slogan for a single shade in a larger collection of liquid eyeshadow products and for allegedly copying the “inherently distinctive packaging [of Sheree Cosmetics’ products], by imprinting quotations on the [inside of] products’ packaging.”

According to the complaint, which was filed on Monday in a New York federal court, Alabama-based Sheree Cosmetics began using the “Born to Sparkle” slogan in connection with its various beauty products late last year, and filed a still-pending application to federally register the mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in August 2018.

Since then, Kylie Cosmetics has started “using the exact same trademark, BORN TO SPARKLE” on one product in her new line of liquid eyeshadow products, Sheree alleges, thereby “likely confusing consumers to believe they are buying the genuine, original BORN TO SPARKLE cosmetics from [Sheree Cosmetics]” instead of a product from Jenner’s wildly successful eponymous beauty venture.

More than merely jacking its trademark, Sheree’s further claims that Kylie Cosmetics has taken to including quotations on the inside of some of its eyeshadow palettes, which Sheree claims infringes its own “inherently distinctive packaging, including the imprinting of quotations in the products.”


 reference

Regus Sues WeWork For Trademark Infringement, Poaching Tenants

HQ has long been used as casual shorthand for headquarters, but the term is at the heart of a trademark infringement lawsuit between the world's two biggest providers of flexible office space.
IWG, through two Texas-based subsidiaries, has filed a lawsuit against WeWork in Dallas federal court, claiming WeWork's new business line, HQ by WeWork, infringes on a 28-year-old trademark registered to HQ Network Systems, which Regus acquired in 2004.

IWG claims the HQ by WeWork brand could confuse customers because IWG still has a brand called HQ Global Workplaces. That brand operates from the website hq.com, and the HQ brand has existed since the 1970s, the suit claims. The lawsuit claims the name HQ by WeWork could "cause confusion and deception in the marketplace."
The suit was filed Sept. 19 in U.S. District Court in Dallas. WeWork filed a countersuit Oct. 9, denying all of Regus' claims and asking the court to invalidate Regus' trademark, based on the idea that HQ is a common term for headquarters and should not be considered intellectual property.

 reference

Looking for more information from world of trademarks?

Browse our previous news & insights