Fashion Design Protection

761 views
676 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
761
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Fashion Design Protection

  1. 1. Fashion Design Protection Janet Kim Lin September 20, 2010 Seattle University School of Law Seattle Uni ersit School of La
  2. 2. Introduction • US Fashion Market: $200 billion ▫ More than books film and music combined More than books, film, and music combined ▫ Haute couture, mid‐market, mass market • US is the pirate nation US is the pirate nation ▫ EU, Japan, India, Australia have some form of design  protection • Historical Context ▫ Fashion Originator’s Guild of America ▫ Recent US legislation
  3. 3. Negative IP Space g p • Fabric Print v. Cut/Design • Patent/Design Patent Patent/Design Patent • Trademark/Trade Dress • Copyright • Right of Publicity • Other industrial designs protected Other industrial designs protected ▫ Architectural works ▫ Vessel hulls ▫ Semiconductors
  4. 4. Should Design Be Protected? g • Purpose of IP Protection (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8) ▫ To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by  securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the  exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries • Piracy Paradox ▫ Induced Obsolescence  Innovation • Copying at the Expense of Creativity h f ▫ Technology/Speed
  5. 5. Copyright py g • Useful Article Limitation/Conceptual Separability ▫ Mazer v Stein v. Stein ▫ Brandir Intl., Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. ▫ Kieselstein‐Cord v. Accessories by Pearl
  6. 6. Copyright py g • Costumes ▫ National Theme Productions v Jerry B Beck National Theme Productions v. Jerry B. Beck Costume does not work well as a garment  © cf Vacheron & Constantin‐Le Coultre Watches, Inc. v.  f , Benrus Watch Co. ▫ Galiano v. Harrah’s Operating Co. Whether it could “fetch a return” functioning purely as  Wh h i ld “f h ”f i i l an artistic commodity
  7. 7. Extending Copyright g py g • 70 years + life of the author  • WMFH 95 years + publication/120 years + creation 95 years + publication/120 years + creation • Promoting innovation?
  8. 8. IDPPPA (S. 3728) ( ) • Innovative Design Protection & Piracy Prevention Act  • August 5, 2010 Senator Charles Schumer (D. NY) August 5 2010 Senator Charles Schumer (D NY) • 17 USC 13: Original Designs (Vessel Hull Designs) • Three‐year sui generis protection for fashion design Three year sui generis protection for fashion design
  9. 9. “Substantially Identical” y • Protected designs are those with “a unique,  distinguishable, non‐trivial and non‐utilitarian  variation over prior designs” • “Substantially Identical” designs are prohibited • “Substantially Identical” is defined as “Substantially Identical” is defined as: an article of apparel which is so similar in  appearance as to be likely to be mistaken for  pp y the protected design, and contains only those  differences in construction or design which  are merely trivial. l l
  10. 10. “Non‐Trivial” • Designers must prove their design is a “non‐trivial”  variation over prior designs variation over prior designs • Does this restrict a design inspired by a past design? • Does this restrict a design inspired by a public trend? • Cannot use colors, and pictorial or graphic elements  imprinted on the fabric to determine the uniqueness  of a design
  11. 11. Registration Not Required g q • Fashion Designs would not need to be registered in  order to receive protection order to receive protection ▫ Therefore, there is no initial Copyright Office  determination of valid design protection g p • The designer makes initial determination ▫ Marking designs as protected ▫ False marking penalties • Over‐inclusion of designs protected?
  12. 12. Plead with Particularity y • Designer would bear a greater burden at the time of  enforcement ▫ The design is protected; ▫ The defendant’s design infringes upon the protected The defendant s design infringes upon the protected  design; and  ▫ The protected design or an image thereof was  available to the extent it is reasonable to infer  defendant had access to the protected design.
  13. 13. Using Existing Jurisprudence g gJ p • Substantial similarity ▫ Ordinary lay observer Ordinary lay observer ▫ Borrowing from trademark law • Access • Functionality
  14. 14. Thank You Janet Kim Lin Bullivant Houser Bailey – Seattle Office Chair, Fashion & Design Division  Tel: 206.521.6437 janet.lin@bullivant.com

×