1) Louis Vuitton wins monogram trademark trial - Trademark laws
Free-riding on Louis Vuitton’s reputation? How original. Trying to trademark an almost identical Toile Monogram? That’s just the wrong type of audacity. Do better Qingjian Fu… But Vuitton, the giant that it is, successfully blocked the registration of said trademark. Is anyone shocked? The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ruled that even though the visual similarities were minimal, the structure and presentation of the marks were close enough to confuse consumers. Minimal similarities? Sure, but the structure was close enough to cause a double-take, and we all know Louis Vuitton doesn’t do “second looks”. I honestly have no idea who Qingjian Fu is or what he does, but I know one thing; creativeness is not his forte. This trial really is a reminder of the importance of protecting well-established trademarks. And a brand like Louis Vuitton? It’s established, and their monogram is as recognizable as the Eiffel Tower. So Fu’s little attempt to hitch a ride on LV’s legacy? Blocked. Hard. But let’s be real, if you’re even thinking about coming for LV’s iconic Toile Monogram, you better come correct - or not at all. Better luck next century!
2) NAGHEDI bids to regsister woven pattern trademark - Patent and Trademarks
Never ask a woman her age, a man his salary, and NAGHEDI why they don’t own the weave trademark. They already challenged the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal to register its neoprene weave pattern as a trademark, so I wouldn't wind them up too much if I were you. The USPTO told them that the pattern is “merely ornamental” and lacks distinctiveness, but NAGHEDI argued that its design has become a “source identifier” for about a decade of consistent use and big marketing efforts. I’m so sorry but I think weave pattern I think Bottega Veneta, not NAGHEDI. About that… They brought up Veneta’s successful trademark protection for its intrecciato weave pattern, proving yet again that when it comes to protecting patterns, the fashion industry is as tangled as, well, a woven handbag.
3) FTC's case against Tapestry - Mergers and Acquisitions
Three-tiers is not only for wedding cakes, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). And while I love a sweet cake-cutting moment, cake smashing? Never a good look - literally or figuratively. But there’s always one to ruin the festivities, and this time, the FTC decided to challenge the $8.5 billion merger between Tapestry and Capri, saying that the deal would reduce competition in the “accessible luxury” market, which includes brands like Michael Kors, Kate Spade, and Coach. The FTC wants a neat little three-tiered structure - mass market, accessible luxury, and high-end luxury. But Tapestry and Capri? They’re insisting those categories are about as outdated as a puff-sleeve wedding gown; modern consumers mix brands like a bride mixes “something old” and “something new”, with some Zara and some Chanel, or even a bit of H&M and a nice vintage Yves Saint Laurent.
But this isn’t just a silly squabble over frosting - the outcome of this case could send a strong signal to the fashion industry regarding the FTC’s pro-competition stance. If the FTC wins, it’ll be like the bouquet toss of doom for other brands - it would make future mergers harder to seal than an overstuffed RSVP list, potentially making it more difficult for brands to consolidate. But if Tapestry and Capri take the cake? The mergers will be flowing like champagne at an open bar. Whether it’s cake-cutting or cake-smashing, this case highlights the FTC’s broader agenda of enforcing antitrust laws across all industries, including luxury fashion. It could also shape how future cases are argued, with the focus shifting between internal company documents and solid economic evidence. In the end, the question is: will brands get a sweet slice of protection, or will their mergers end up as crumbs on the floor?
Related Posts
