Source: http://www.vegastrademarkattorney.com/2008/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:06:52+00:00

Document:
The media was abuzz today about the lawsuit filed against Target Corp. (“Target”) by Diane von Furstenberg Studio, L.P. (“DVF”), the limited partnership established by Diane von Furstenberg in 1997 to sell her “signature” line of dresses, over alleged copies of her famed “wrap dresses” being sold at Target stores. The news stories on the lawsuit in Reuters and Associated Press were picked up by numerous news outlets.
DVF has a history of filing similar lawsuits against retailers that sell dresses and other products that copy her “signature” designs. While most of the press about DVF’s lawsuits have focused on the allegations of “copyright infringement” (because most of DVF’s designs are copyrighted), the complaints typically include some trademark infringement allegations – specifically, false designation of origin and unfair competition.
Although I haven’t seen the actual complaint against Target, it is likely to be similar to the lawsuit DVF filed last year against Forever 21, which involved allegations that Forever 21 was selling dresses and blouses with nearly identical print designs (the same scale and colorway) as those copyrighted by DVF in several copyright registrations (“Small Dentelle,” “Flower Lace Band,” “Mimosa,” and “Scattered Stones”). See Diane Von Furstenberg Studio, LP v. Forever 21, Inc. et al, Case No. 07-cv-02413 (S.D.N.Y.). A copy of the first amended complaint in that case can be downloaded here. A good blog posting on this particular case (with pictures) can be found here.
In the instant complaint, DVF is going after Target for dresses which copy the “scale, pattern, and colorways” of DVF’s copyrighted “Spotted Frog” Design that DVF registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on September 13, 2006. See Copyright Registration No. VAu-704-976.
The design was apparently introduced at Furstenberg's Spring 2007 fashion show during New York Fashion Week in September 2006 – and appears on dresses, luggage, handbags and other items.
While DVF sent a letter to Target last Friday notifying Target about the allegedly infringing dress, and Target subsequently removed the dress from its website, the complaint alleges that the dress is still being sold at Target’s retail stores.
Given DVF’s past success with these types of lawsuits, I see no reason to believe this case will be any different. The parties will reach some kind of settlement.
I will leave the copyright issues raised by DVF's lawsuits to others (i.e., DVF’s use of its design copyrights to essentially stop the sale of a dress style that clothing manufacturers are typically free to imitate).
As for the false designation of origin and unfair competition claims, DVF’s complaint in Forever 21 described its “products” as high-quality and superb design that have achieved outstanding reputation among customers, especially fashion conscious women. In addition, the complain bragged how DVF’s products are sold in high-end department stores such as Barney’s, Neiman Marcus, and Saks Fifth Avenue as well as on DVF’s website.
However, given the worldwide renown and high-end reputation garnered by DVF’s products, can the company really argue that consumers are likely to be confused with respect to the origin of similar looking dresses sold at Target? Without sounding too condescending to Target customers (after all, I’m a Target shopper myself), most Target customers seeing a dress on the racks with a pattern resembling the above “frog” pattern on it (or anything similar) are not likely to remotely associate it with DVF (much less be confused as to its source or origin). And those fashion conscious shoppers who know enough about fashion to recognize a DVF design when they see one are also savvy enough to know that a genuine DVF dress would never be sold at a not-so-high-end store like Target, and therefore, they are not likely to be confused as to source or origin or believe that the dress is somehow approved by DVF.
While I’m not really a fan of the late reggae musician Robert Nesta Marley (aka Bob Marley), a lot of people are and this fame has made the late musician’s name and likeness very valuable to his heirs.
A company named Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. (“Fifty-Six Hope Road”), a Bahamas International Business Company which is owned and operated by Marley’s 12 children, owns the intellectual property rights to Bob Marley’s name and likeness.
Fifty-Six Hope Road obtained a federal trademark registration for the mark BOB MARLEY on May 16, 2000 for eleven classes of goods, including T-shirts, jewelry, greeting cards, wallets, mugs, and smoking pipes. Fifty-Six Hope Road entered into a licensing agreement with Zion Rootswear LLC (“Zion”), a Florida corporation, granting Zion an exclusive worldwide license to use the Bob Marley intellectual property on various goods.
The companies have a history of rigorously enforcing these trademark rights. See article here about one past trademark infringement lawsuit and here about the well-publicized dispute with Verizon over Marley-based ringtones.
In the last week, the companies have filed two new trademark infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada going after a Canadian jeans company and a movie poster company.
The first suit was filed on January 18, 2008 by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion against Fame Jeans, Inc. and Charles Freidman . See Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. Fame Jeans, Inc. et al, Case No. 08-CV-00082 (D. Nev.). The second suit was filed on January 23, 2008, by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion against A.V.E.L.A., Inc. (the Art and Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency) and Leo Valencia. See Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc. et al, Case No. 08-CV-00105 (D. Nev.).
Without reading the complaints, the lawsuits most likely allege registered trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. §1114), federal trademark infringement and unfair competition (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)), and common law trademark infringement arising from defendants' sale of clothing and posters displaying Marley’s name (a registered trademark), picture, or some other likeness.
One strange aspect about these new lawsuits is that the defendants in these two lawsuits are the same named defendants from a previous trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion on February 14, 2007. See Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. Fame Jeans et al, Case No. 07-CV-00194 (D. Nev.). That case, however, was voluntarily dismissed by Fifty-Six Hope Road and Zion on November 29, 2007. I'm sure the companies had their reasons for dismissing the prior suits and refiling them separately.
Here is my pick for favorite trademark parody of the year (so far, anyway). I spotted it on the back of car today and it made me laugh (and definitely made me think of Intel’s famous INTEL INSIDE trademark – although for the record I was not confused by it).
For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the above slang term preceding INSIDE, I direct you to the Urban Dictionary for a proper explanation . . . or you could just do a Google search of the term, but make sure the kids aren’t around.
Unfortunately, I was unable to see the occupant of the car in order determine if the mark as applied in this instance was arbitrary and fanciful, suggestive, or merely descriptive.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1114
 §1125
 v.