How conflicts arise is quite prevalent, especially in the fashion industry, where everyone strives to be the best, and as a result, lines are frequently crossed, mistakes are made along the road, and other such things. We see several potential or susceptible areas in the fashion business where enough safety is not offered, or awareness is lacking. As a result, they have escalated into some of the most contentious debates ever. This article highlights the top 6 legal disputes in which fashion and law are inextricably linked.
Paparazzi Copyright Suits
For uploading paparazzi images of oneself on social media without the photographers’ consent, numerous celebrities have been sued or threatened with being sued for copyright infringement. Like many other pop stars such as Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, and Nicki Minaj, Gigi Hadid has been sued by several photographers and photo agencies for uploading images of herself on Instagram without properly licencing the photos from the copyright holder on multiple occasions. Even fashion designers like Virgil Abloh, the founder of Off White, and the well-known Marc Jacobs have been sued for copyright infringement. The right to regulate the commercial use of one’s identity, or prevent others from utilising their picture, name, or other aspects of their identity for commercial purposes without their agreement, is known as the right of publicity. Although the right to privacy is not codified in India, it has been recognised and enforced in many cases by Indian courts. In the lawsuits pertaining to the U.S. celebrities named above, the defendants’ attorneys have made fair usage (or fair dealing) and co-authorship arguments. Still, in India, The Copyright Act of India explicitly defines the creator of a photograph as the person who “takes” the photograph, so that argument cannot be used in the Indian Scenario as per this analogy.
Fashion Discrimination Cases
Fashion is usually linked to particular ideals of beauty and visual polish, and it is called “glitzy” for a reason. But not everything that glitters is gold, and glitter handled carelessly can get in your eyes and blind you. Well-known retailers and brands have repeatedly faced discrimination claims from customers and staff. Sephora was sued after it allegedly deactivated thousands of online accounts held by Asian shoppers, many using Chinese email providers, during an exclusive sale. A transgender employee sued Forever 21, claiming a store manager mocked her appearance, called her disgusting and told her she was still a man in the company’s eyes. Barneys faced two racial profiling complaints within weeks of each other in 2013, both from young Black shoppers who were stopped by police after buying expensive items, which says a great deal. Luxury houses have not been spared either. A beauty consultant employed by Procter & Gamble at a Dolce & Gabbana makeup counter alleged she was fired after a supervisor told her pregnancy did not fit the uniform. A former worker at a Versace outlet in California claimed staff were told to use a code word whenever a Black customer walked in. And a former Tiffany & Co. employee alleged she was pushed out after undergoing preventive surgeries because of a genetic cancer risk. Cases like these expose the industry’s darker side, and every brand and designer needs to take real steps to stop such conduct.
When Garment Design Elements became copyrightable
In Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the Supreme Court widened the door to copyright protection for fashion. Copyright gives the creators of paintings, sculptures, poems, books and many other works a set of exclusive rights, but protection for clothing designs has always been far less certain, because garments are useful articles. Under the Copyright Act of 1976, a design element on clothing can be protected only if it would qualify as a copyrightable work on its own. Varsity Brands, a leading maker of cheerleading uniforms, sued its smaller rival Star Athletica in 2010, claiming Star Athletica had copied the chevrons, stripes and colour blocks from five of its uniform designs. Varsity argued that these graphic elements were separate from the uniforms’ function and so deserved the same protection as any other artwork. Star Athletica replied that the decoration could not be pulled apart from the uniform’s purpose, since the stripes and chevrons are part of what makes it recognisable as a cheerleading uniform. In 2017 the Court announced a new test, held that the designs could be considered separately from the garments’ useful features, and ruled for Varsity Brands, confirming that fashion and apparel designs can enjoy at least some copyright protection.
The Defamation Battle between Diet Prada and Dolce & Gabanna
In light of current anti-Asian comments in the United States, fashion watchdog Diet Prada is publicly challenging a defamation lawsuit filed by Italian design house Dolce & Gabbana. Following an ad campaign featuring an Asian woman trying to eat Italian food with chopsticks, Diet Prada labelled the brand racist and sexist in 2018. After receiving outrage, Dolce & Gabbana filed a lawsuit against the social media account, seeking 4 million euros ($4.8 million) in damages for lost income and brand harm. Dolce & Gabbana postponed a planned fashion show in Shanghai after the ad campaign garnered controversy, and a number of models and celebrities withdrew and issued a public video apology. “I believe Dolce & Gabbana’s actions of publicly apologising on the one hand, while using on the other, merits closer examination,” Ms Sedhom stated. Diet Prada cofounders Tony Liu and Lindsay Schuyler were sued by Dolce & Gabbana a few months later, in early 2019, for damages caused by the account’s public criticism of Dolce & Gabbana. Mr Liu and Ms Schuyler published a statement on March 1, 2021, asserting their right to free expression in response to the Italian brand’s claims in a Milan court. “Diet Prada will continue to be a platform to elevate these crucial issues.” They said. Because the lawsuit was filed in an Italian civil court rather than a U.S. court, Diet Prada’s legal team believes Dolce & Gabbana is looking for a favourable judgement and engaged in a degree of forum shopping.
Hugo Boss – Brand or the name of a comedian?
In response to the German fashion house’s trademark enforcement efforts, U.K. comedian Joe Lycett has officially changed his name to Hugo Boss. Now here’s a little backstory regarding the same. Hugo Boss reportedly sent a cease and desist letter to Welsh company Boss Brewing in August 2019, initiating a four-month trademark dispute. Boss Brewing eventually agreed to change the names of its products – ‘Boss Black’ (to ‘Boss Brewing Black’) and ‘Boss Boss’ (to ‘Boss Bossy’) – and stop selling clothes. It was a little surprising why such a huge brand is coming after a small brand just to protect its identity and make it an extremely stressful and long-drawn battle for the brewing company’s owner. Joe Lycett received a letter from the U.K. Deed Poll Office on February 1, 2020, certifying that he had officially changed his name to Hugo Boss. In response to the explanation for the merchandise being moved, he stated that Hugo Boss despises those who use their name. So, unfortunately for them, he has changed his name to Hugo Boss and will be launching a brand new product called Hugo Boss soon. Hugo Boss has yet to reply to the incident. However, it comes after the fashion house’s recent legal fights, which have been controversial.
The Lucky 13 Saga
The Evergreen and Mega Popstar Taylor Swift settled a lawsuit filed by Blue Sphere, the clothing company that owns the “Lucky 13” trademark, in November 2015. The suit was filed after she started selling “Lucky 13” goods and fan merchandise and held a “Lucky 13” contest, among other things. While Swift claimed that 13 was only a lucky number for her and that the plaintiffs had harassed her, Her agents at William Morris Endeavor turned over all of Swift’s paperwork. At the same time, attorneys for Blue Sphere continued to look for materials like all images and films of Swift in which her buttocks or breasts were exposed somehow. Part of the work was to figure out how items were called, what other products might have been considered, and whether trademark records were searched in combination with all of this. The outcome of the lawsuit was not made public. What’s more interesting is that she has begun proactively trademarking additional words and lyrics she frequently uses to avoid future complications after this incident. She has secured a discreet arrangement outside of Court.
List of References:
https://www.luxurydaily.com/dolce-gabbana-diet-prada-lawsuit-addresses-racial-bias-in-fashion/
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/taylor-swift-settles-lucky-13-838473/
FASHION LAW JOURNAL INSIDER
Join designers, brand founders and fashion lawyers who get the biggest brand battles, IP fights and career moves in fashion law, straight to their inbox.
