1) The Shoe Surgeon v. Goyard and Nike - Trademark Infringement
When you’re borderline counterfeiting, there’s always the stress of getting caught hanging around like the threat of a market crash. And I guess we can say the Shoe Surgeon’s game fell flat. A double attack from Goyard and Nike will do that to you. Goyard’s accusations are centered around the unauthorized use of its trademarks by creating footwear and accessories marketed as using “authentic” Goyard canvas, something the luxury brand had not verified. Claiming “artistic customization” was a good move, but Goyard was playing chess not checkers, and claimed that such use misled customers into believing a collaboration existed. That was all in the past, in the end, Goyard threw in the towel and settled.
Nike’s lawsuit is still ongoing, however, centering on claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting tied to the customization of the Air Jordan and Air Force 1 silhouettes. Again with the nonexistent affiliation between the two, something that Nike is defending, on top of the argument that the Shoe Surgeon built its business on unauthorized use of its intellectual property. They write books about such troubles. But, the Shoe Surgeon has countered with allegations that Nike has essentially been taking a page out of their playbook, using their expertise in customization for the “Nike By You” program without so much as a handshake or a check. As of now, the whole thing escalated into a defamation case and calls for invalidating some of Nike’s trade dress registrations, so clearly, it’s not going to wrap up in a quick settlement over lunch. But who’s really running the race? That’s an essay.
2) The fashion workers act - Labor Rights
It shouldn’t be anything less than criminal to mistreat the models of the fashion industry. Wishful thinking? My wish came true. In the final weeks of 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed the landmark Fashion Workers Act into law. No more model agencies running wild and unchecked! It’s the boldest thing to happen to the modeling world since the invention of contouring. For models, this means greater control over their contracts, never seen before transparency on expenses, and proper channels to report any harassment and predatory practices. It also means no more AI stealing models’ faces and calling it art. All the credit goes to Sara Ziff and the Model Alliance for lighting the fire, but this is just the first flame. Think of it as the match that challenges everything we thought we knew about the fashion industry, from Gerald Marie’s disgrace to the Wall Street kind of manipulation.
It’s not just a model thing either. This law is going to affect everyone in the entire industry, from brands to designers, making sure no one’s left with their pants down. Brands, take note: if you’re still messing with late payments or opaque contracts, you’re on the chopping block, according to the stylist and designer Amy Ekren. And if you think this is just a New York problem, think again: it’s going coast-to-coast and across the pond. Los Angeles is keeping its seamstresses in stitches with a plan to preserve garment-making spaces and uplift workers, and Europe’s Circular Economy Action Plan and the U.S.'s Fashion Act are trying to sew up the industry’s environmental mess. Ambitious? Sure. Necessary? Absolutely. The season of playing fast and loose is officially over! This law is just like that friend who never forgets your birthday - it’s going to hold you accountable.
3) Loro Piana v. MNSWR - Litigation and Damages
If I had a euro for every time someone tried to cash in on the whole “quiet luxury” affair, I’d still be nowhere near Loro Piana’s litigation budget - at least they’re spending it well. The Court of Bari just handed them a win in their case against MNSWR Group, the company behind Viola Milano, for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Apparently, the ‘Capri’ and ‘City’ loafers had a little too much in common with Loro Piana’s signature white rubber soles from the Open Walk and Summer Walk shoes. The court didn’t just call out the knockoffs - it ordered MNSWR to quit producing, advertising, and selling them altogether. With knockoffs like that, I'm not sure if heads will roll - eyes definitely will.
Where there’s trademark infringement talk, there’s money talk, and I’ll indulge. The court imposed a penalty of €400 per pair of infringing shoes sold or imported and ordered MNSWR Group to pay €6,700 in litigation costs. And are we still sticking to the idea that no publicity is bad publicity? Just asking because the company also needs to publish the ruling in two major Italian newspapers and display it in a big, bold, and noticeable fashion on their websites. Loafers. Soles. Sprezzatura. Headlines. Pressure. What pressure? The one pushing their cash flow to a meltdown. I do hope their PR team is energized because turning this situation into something a minimum profitable is going to take more spin than a Soul Cycling class.
4) Lego v. Concannon - Copyright and Trademark Law
The best defense is to attack. There’s no better case to use this line on, and you’ll see why. LEGO, the childhood giant that taught us to dream big and scream louder when stepping on a brick, is now stepping on some toes - potentially some copyrights as well. They’re seeking an early victory in a lawsuit filed by artist James Concannon, who accuses the toy giant of copying the design of a leather jacket he created for Antoni Porowski. Essentially, Concannon is saying LEGO didn’t just build a figurine - they built a lawsuit, by featuring a miniature version of the leather jacket. Concannon claims this infringes on his copyright and trademark rights, by turning his art into a collectible. Someone’s upset they didn’t get a thank you note - or a licensing fee for that matter.
LEGO’s standing tall, confident that they’re not just playing with blocks - they’re playing a game of legal chess, and they think they’ve already checkmated Concannon. They’re pushing for summary judgment, contending that they had an implied license to use the jacket design as part of their set, since Concannon gave the jacket to Porowski for free to wear on a show. And there’s the “transformative fair use” argument, which, for them, means turning a leather jacket into a plastic one is, truthfully, artistic reinvention. And to Concannon’s claims of unfair competition, LEGO that they haven’t demonstrated the necessary “secondary meaning” for his design to function as a trademark, in other words, LEGO’s betting that your six-year-old can tell the difference between couture and a minifigure.
Related Posts
