1) Audemars Piguet & TTAB - Intellectual Property Law
What do hedge fund managers and discreetly wealthy divorcées like the most? It isn’t golf, it’s Audemars Piguet. Shame the USPTO just told AP that a big-budget watch and a strong identity aren’t the same thing. Slapping an octagonal bezel on a timepiece doesn’t make it legally yours - just culturally inevitable. The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has politely - but firmly - denied AP’s attempt to lock down exclusive rights to the Royal Oak’s face, bezel, casing, bracelet, and table at Zero Bond. Ever the buzzkill, they ruled that these elements are functional and too common across the industry to be trademarked. The board also pointed out that AP failed to engage in the Look-At-Me school of advertising - meaning their marketing never explicitly told customers to associate those design features with the brand itself. Have I shocked you? Who knew that a watch seen at every Davos afterparty still needed a PowerPoint slide to prove it’s iconic? Especially when your entire clientele consists of people who believe exclusivity is an asset class.
The TTAB did accept, though, that the Royal Oak’s octagonal bezel and signature hexagonal screws are distinguishable, so AP can still lean on those details. The rest? Fair game. Bad news for AP. Good news for every other watch brand with a “homage” model and a willingness to test the limits of originality. In the eyes of the law, heritage and puffery aren’t enough. Want real protection? Get creative. Lean into copyrights, design patents, or, heaven forbid, actually innovate instead of banking on a 1972 Gérald Genta sketch for another five decades. Because banking on the past? It rhymes with bleeding cash fast.
2) Patagonia v. Worn Again Technologies - Trademark Law
Welcome to the world of sustainability, where the mantra is “do good” unless you can trademark it first. Patagonia’s “Worn Wear” initiative, known for its trade-in, repair, resale services, and Silicon Valley’s favorite tax write-off, is facing legal challenges against Worn Again Technologies, a textile recycling outfit in bed with H&M and Kering. The play-by-play; Patagonia filed a complaint against Worn Again’s trademark applications, claiming the names are too similar and will confuse consumers. Worn Again then also opposed some of Patagonia’s trademark applications, making this less of a David vs. Goliath and more of a two-Goliaths-slugging-it-out situation. Both brands claim to champion sustainability, but apparently, sharing the planet is easier than sharing a name.
For now, both sides hit pause to explore potential settlements, which essentially means the lawyers are busy racking up billable hours while Patagonia and Worn Again wine and dine each other in order to save the planet. The headline? “We’ll see what happens.” At the end of the day, this is less about keeping the ice caps melting and more about protecting market share. Because what’s a sustainability movement if you can’t slap a ™ next to it?
3) Pandabuy v. SP5DER & Off-White - Platform Liability Law
Who else thought the lawsuit filed by SP5DER and Off-White against Pandabuy looked like a stop sign for counterfeit sales? We were all so so wrong. It was a starting pistol! Now who pulled the trigger? Well, the U.S. District Court dissolved a preliminary injunction that had frozen $16 million of its assets and restricted its operations. Get-out-of-jail-free card? Maybe my sight’s deceiving me again. The lawsuit, filed in April 2024 by SP5DER and Off-White accused Pandabuy of enabling counterfeit sales through its platform. But Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke made it official: Pandabuy is a facilitator, not a seller or manufacturer, which means it doesn’t meet the “use in commerce” standard under the Lanham Act. In other words, it’s not their problem if someone buys an "Off-White" hoodie with quotation marks that are just a little too mocking. They’re just the middleman - like Uber, but for bootleg Balenciaga.
I too was wondering how the plaintiffs lost to a company built on questionable logistics and even more questionable ethics, but Pandabuy isn’t the bad guy - it’s just the guy who knows the bad guy. It’s all about plausible deniability. The brands can whine and the lawyers can posture, but unless someone rewrites the Lanham Act, this game isn’t just legal - it’s scalable. The real takeaway here? If you’re gonna profit off counterfeits, just don’t physically touch them. Hands clean, money flowing. And let’s be real: the counterfeit industry isn’t going anywhere. If anything, this just gave every grifter with a website a free legal blueprint. Regulators might eventually wake up, but for now? The counterfeit pipeline just got a $16 million green light.
4) Chanel - Brand Protection
If it’s not stamped with the new “CHANEL Authorized Retailer”, your bottle of No. 5 might as well be moonshine. It’s real, and you can find the badge on e-commerce platforms like Sephora, Ulta, and Macy’s, very soon, because nothing screams high-end like an e-commerce verification sticker wedged between “Add to Cart” and Klarna’s installment plan. Chanel’s making sure every last lipstick and perfume bottle is noted. Why? To protect its branding. It’s just about making sure no one profits off the Chanel name without kissing the ring! They’re not just selling products anymore, they’re selling the right to sell them. And, because Chanel is Chanel, they’re not rolling this out quietly. They’re filing trademark applications for the badge in the U.S., France, Germany, and anywhere else a lawyer can bill $2,000 an hour. Because when you control the market, you don’t just make money. You become the market.
Related Posts
