The Rise of Non-Traditional Trademarks in the Fashion Industry
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
10/2/2019 PARIS FASHION LAW AND INNOVATION CONFERENCE The Five Sense: The Rise of Non-Traditional Trademarks in the Fashion Industry Céline Bondard, Principal, Cabinet Bondard (Moderator) Nathalie Dreyfus, CEO & Founder, Dreyfus Olivera Medenica, Partner, Dunnington, Bartholow & Miller LLP Maria Vathis, Of Counsel, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner Access Materials – www.fedbar.org/ParisFashion19-materials #FBA #FABA 1 Any word, slogan, scent design, or combination thereof, that identifies the symbol source of your goods and services and distinguishes them color from the goods and services of another product design party. word WHAT IS A TRADEMARK? TM® #fashionlaw #teamdunnington 2 1 10/2/2019 WHAT IS A TRADE DRESS? Trade dress is not defined in e.g. the Lanham Act. The Supreme Court has found that: (1)Trade dress constitutes a symbol or device within the Trade dress protection can serve an important function in fashion Lanham Act definition of a design. trademark. and (2)A symbol or device means almost anything that can carry meaning. Trade dress is the total image of a product, which may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, textures, or graphics. 3 DISTINCTIVENESS NOT FUNCTIONAL In order to obtain trade dress Feature is functional if it “is protection, the trade dress must be: essential to the use or purpose of the article or [the feature] affects the • Inherently distinctive; or cost or quality of the article.” • Have gained secondary meaning over time. Standards for Trade Dress Protection 4 2 10/2/2019 Secondary meaning occurs when the particular TM transcends public awareness such that people, in Secondary general, do not associate it with the product Meaning category, but rather with the specific company/brand. Factors to consider: • Amount and manner of advertising; • Volume of sales; • Duration of use; • Consumer surveys. #FASHI ONLAW 5 TWO PESOS, INC. V. TACO CABANA, CA 505 U.S. 763, 112 S.CT. 2753 (1992) SE #fashionlaw #trademark infringement 6 3 10/2/2019 QUALITEX CO. V. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., INC., CA 514 U.S. 159 (1995) SE #fashionlaw #trademark infringement 7 WAL‐MART STORES, INC. V. SAMARA BROS., CA 529 U.S. 205(2000) SE #fashionlaw #trademark infringement 8 4 10/2/2019 PRODUCT PACKAGING e.g. 9 PRODUCT DESIGN e.g. 10 5 10/2/2019 #FASHI ONLAW FUNCTIONALITY & AESTHETIC FUNCTIONALITY Madden's Shipper bag (left) & Cult Gaia's Ark bag (right) 11 Trade Dress PRODUCT PACKAGING & Functional‐ PRODUCT DESIGN No Registration Non‐Functional Product Product Design Packaging Secondary Meaning Inherently Secondary Distinctive Meaning 12 6 10/2/2019 France & Fashion Law The center of haute couture 2019 Fashion week’s figures 1,2 billion € of benefits for the Paris fashion industry per year 400 shows per year, 50% of which being foreign brands 27 trade fairs welcoming 14 000 exhibitors 300 manufacturing workshops 100 000 individual visitors per year to fashion shows 13 Protecting fashion by trademark Art 15(1) TRIPS Agreement “Any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, shall be capable of constituting a trademark”. Directive (EU) 2015/2436, December 16, 2015 : extends the protection to non traditional trademarks. Article L711-1 of the IP French Code : “Signs may include: (a) denominations in all forms, such as: words, combination of words, surnames and geographical representations, pseudonyms, letters, numerals, abbreviations; (b) audible signs such as: sounds, musical phrases; (c) figurative signs such as: (…) shapes, particularly those of a product or its packaging, or those that identify a service; arrangements, combinations or shades of colour.” February 22, 2019 : suppression of the graphical representation requirement (“Loi PACTE”) L’Oréal v Bellure, ECJ, June 18, 2009 (C- 487/07) Iron & Smith v Unilever, ECJ, September 3, 2015 (C-125/14) 14 7 10/2/2019 Protecting fashion by trademark ECJ, Arsenal Football Club Plc Guarantee of indication v Matthew Reed, C-206/01, of origin November 12, 2012. Guarantee of quality Paris Court of Appeals, n° 13/02902 September 16, 2014. Paris Court of Appeal, Sté Shanghai Ylangting, December 21, 2012, n° 12/07836 15 Abandon of the graphical representation requirement “clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective” Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 A sign should be able to be represented with generally available representation methods rather then necessarily in a graphical way. Opens the door to non traditional trademarks. Now possible to represent the mark in MP3, MP4, GIF But still difficult for scent trademarks, as there is no technical or technological ways to represent scent marks. 16 8 10/2/2019 Non traditional trademarks in fashion “Non traditional marks” generally covers Position Motion Trademark marks, other than word, figurative or Trademarks complex marks, that are used to identify products or services. 2 categories : • visible signs (colors, motions, shape) and • non-visible signs which relate to all of the five senses (sounds, smells scents, Colour Pattern tastes and textures). Trademark Trademark Only around 1,400 out of nearly 300,000 applications filed as EU trademark since October 1st, 2017 are non-traditional trademarks !! 17 French Case Law TGI of Paris, 3rd chamber, 2nd section, May 16, 2014, n°13/00860 - Wrangler 18 9 10/2/2019 French Case Law Tribunal of grande instance of Paris, 3rd chamber 4th section, March 15, 2012, n°11/06508 - Burberry “the consumer in front of a pair of Charentaises, quite usually decorated with a Scottish decoration, will perceive it as a whole without distinguishing structure and combination of colours and will therefore not be led to consider that because of the particular layout of the lines, the product presented to him has as its origin the company Burberry ltd” 19 French Case Law • French High Court, May 30, 2012, • French Court of Appeals Paris, May 15, n°11-20724 - Louboutin v. Zara 2018, n°17/07124, SAS Kesslord Paris c/ SAS Christian Louboutin Christian Louboutin registered trademark representing a "red sole of a shoe" in 2001 The French Supreme Court held that the Louboutin’s trademark registration was invalid and rejected the argument of confusion. 20 10 10/2/2019 European Union Case Law 3D TRADEMARK ECJ, Christian Louboutin v van Haren Schoenen BV , C-163/16, June 12, 2018 This was not only a question of a shape combined with a color, but it was more a question of protecting the application of a color to a specific part of a product. “a sign consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a high-heeled shoe, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not consist exclusively of a ‘shape” ECJ, Textilis Ltd v Svenskt Tenn AB, C-21/18, March 14, 2019 If a motif is applicable to a form, it does not mean that it is imposed by the form of this product. 21 European Union Case Law POSITION TRADEMARKS ECJ, Deichmann SE c. EUIPO and Munich SL, June 6, 2019 (C-223/18) : the black cross. TUE, Adidas AG and Marques c. EUIPO and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA, June 19, 2019 (T-307/17) : the three stripes trademark. 22 11 10/2/2019 No trade dress in France Trade dress is a type of trademark law that extends to the configuration (design and shape) of a product itself. It “may include features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics or even particular sales techniques.” (Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 765 (1992)) Conditions : 1- The trade dress does not serve a "functional" purpose 2- It is "distinctive" Alternative to trade dress in France ? Copyright 3D trademarks Design 23 Interpretation of the European Court of Justice ECJ, Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co, C-12/12, April 18, 2013 Preliminary ruling Mark n°3 Mark n°6 24 12 10/2/2019 LITIGATION: A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE UNITED STATES 25 SAMPLE LITIGATION BUDGET 1. Pleadings/Motions $25,000 - $50,000 2. Injunctive Relief $50,000 - $100,000 3. Written Discovery $25,000 - $100,000 4. Oral Discovery $25,000 - $75,000 5. Expert Discovery $25,000 - $125,000 6. Summary Judgment $25,000 - $50,000 7. Trial $100,000 - $1 million+ 8. Post-Trial Motions $25,000 - $50,000 9. Appeals $25,000 - $75,000 Range: $325,000 - $1,625,000+ 26 13 10/2/2019 FACTORS THAT IMPACT THE TOTAL COST OF LITIGATION -Size of Case -Number of Experts -Size of Company -Opposing Counsel -Number of Motions -Court Rules -Amount of Discovery -Court Schedule -Electronic Discovery -Length of Trial -Number of Depositions -Appeal 27 THE LANHAM ACT Monetary Damages Recoverable Under the Lanham Act: • Lost Profits • Actual Damages • Treble Damages • Statutory Damages Plaintiff Can Recover: • Defendant’s Profits • Any Damages Sustained By Plaintiff • Costs of the Action The court has a great deal of discretion to fashion relief based on the totality of the circumstances. In assessing damages, the court may enter damages for any sum above the amount found as actual damages, not exceeding three times that amount. The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. The plaintiff can also elect to recover statutory damages instead of actual damages in an amount not less than $1,000 or more than $200,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold or as the court considers just; or (2) if there was willful useof a counterfeit mark, not more than $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale or distributed.