Posts with tag lawsuit

Victoria's Secret has gone and done it again. Their lingerie is so dangerous it should come with a warning label! First a woman was attacked by her thong. Now this time the women's underwear company is being sued because their bras made a woman sick.

Trademark lawsuits are usually as boring an emotionless as the corporate legal teams that file them, but when the case involves Time Square's Naked Cowboy, things can get a little more colorful. The Naked Cowboy, who's real name is Robert Burck, got the go-ahead from a federal judge yesterday to sue M&M for stealing his unique sense of style. In specific, the blue M&M infringed on the Robert's rights when he appeared on video billboards in Times Square wielding a six string and wearing nothing but boots, briefs, and a cowboy hat.

Apparently, the judge said that they Burck's trademark rights weren't violated -- which is a bummer -- but that he could go ahead seeking $4 million in damages from M&M Mars for leading people to believe that he endorsed the product. After the ruling, Burch told The Post that it "Sounds like I've got $4 million coming my way." That's a pretty good payday for a guy who strums a guitar on the side of the road -- clothed or naked.

[via Gawker]

Victoria's Secret and their lawsuits are starting to make us want to vomit. Their latest adventure in trademark law centers around the right to use the word "sexy." Wasn't it just a couple of months ago that VS decided that it was getting too sexy? Well, you can forget about that now. Looks like VS is totally annoyed that someone already thought to call their haircare products "sexy."

Apparently, a company called Sexy Hair Concepts LLC likes to use the "Sexy Hair" to describe it's shampoo, and they've been doing it a lot longer. Last year, a court ruled that VS's "So Sexy" haircare line couldn't be trademarked (because trademarking the word 'sexy' is retarded) -- so they couldn't force Sexy Hair Concepts to change its name. But, since VS's marketing department has run out of adjectives, they're going to try to go to court and sue Sexy Hair out of their name. Ridiculous. This is about as dumb as a lawsuit over the color pink.

[via Gawker]

Just when she got rid of a crazed stalker, Uma Thurman once again finds herself back in court.

The actress sued cosmetic giant Lancôme on Friday for $15 million dollars for continuing to use her image in advertising on Canadian billboards and Asian websites even though her contract had expired. Apparently, her contract expired in 2004.

But wait! There's more.

Every the most ardent fashionista will surely admit that there are some things which are - yes! - more important than the latest designer bag, Paris Hilton's newest business venture or what the stars are wearing to another black tie event. Nadia Plesner certainly thinks so: the 26-year old artist from Holland has created a series of striking posters to highlight the tragedy of the ongoing genocide in Darfur (in which so far 200,000-400,000 people have died -- and 2.5 million have been displaced from their homes).

To mark the contrast between the suffering of the people of Darfur and our love of celebrity style and gossip, she drew a starving African child holding a chihuahua dog and a purse which looks similar to something LV would make.

If you hang around with copyright lawyers enough, you're bound to get sued. That's what seems to be happening to Victoria's Secret right now. After suing Macy's for supposedly making knockoffs of their "Pink" line, it looks like VS is going to have to face the wrath of Juicy Couture's legal team. According to the lawsuit, Victoria Secret ripped off Juicy's trademark pink color as well as its marketing strategy, even down to the lollipop shaped packaging of some of their items.

It seems like every major fashion company is up to their eyeballs in copyright infringement lawsuits these days -- but instead of going after straight up counterfeiters, they've unexpectedly taken the opportunity to have a free-for-all on each other. It'll be interesting to see how many of these lawsuits hold up in court. When it's over, I'm sure most will wish the hadn't bothered to cast the first stone.

[via Jezebel]

We bet you had no idea that a bra could be life threatening did you? Well, it can. A woman in Greenville, S.C. had a near life threatening experience with her Victoria's Secret lingerie.

The guys at American Apparel may consider Woody Allen their spiritual leader, but apparently they didn't read up on his teachings regarding celebrity endorsements, or copyright infringement. Woody's legal team filed a lawsuit yesterday against the clothing company, seeking damages in excess of $10 million for using an unlicensed image of the filmmaker in some of their billboard advertisements. The billboards went up last May in New York and LA, where they were on display for about a week before they got pulled. In the gospel according to Woody: you use an image from one of his films without permission, you get served.

We've tried, on a number of occasions, to persuade you that, whatever you do, you should avoid the dreaded Crocs at all cost. They're funny looking. And nobody who sees you wearing them thinks you're "fun" or "funky" -- I promise.

But your fashion concerns may pale in comparison to the threat of physical danger. I've written before that wearing these absurdly-colored monstrosities while on an escalator could have some serious consequences. A number of people (especially children) have suffered foot injuries by wearing the particularly grippy footwear, and there's a few horror stories floating around about mangled (or even missing) toes. Yikes!

Now one family, who claims their daughter was "severely and permanently" injured after her Croc got stuck in an escalator, is suing the shoemaker for $7 million.

The Croc response? "The popularity of our shoes has helped draw attention to a long-existing issue that we think is very important -- escalator safety." Which seems to imply that the company believes escalators routinely eat toes, no matter what kind of shoes you're wearing.

So how come no one else is being sued?

[via Consumerist]

If you purchased a dress that looks like this from a Target store recently, hold on to it -- you might be wearing evidence from an upcoming court battle. In a complaint filed in Manhattan last Thursday, Diane von Furstenberg's studio decided to get legal with the big box retailer over a dress that too closely resembled her distinctive "spotted frog" design.

Apparently, DVF first contacted Target reps a week ago regarding the offending cocktail dress and they removed it from the website -- but not from all of their stores. Now, after a week of dragging their feet, the Minneapolis based retailer is going to have to put their legal team on standby.

In the words of the lawsuit, the Target versions "nearly identically copy the scale, pattern and colorways of DVF's Spotted Frog Design," -- at 1/5 the price. Hells yeah, that's why we shop at Target.

Buy the original

Last week Lauren reported that Gwen Stefani was suing Forever 21 for knocking off her designs. Today Vogue UK brings news of a similar suit, although not one as young and trendy. Levi has filed a lawsuit Polo Ralph Lauren claiming that Lauren is copying their pocket stitching. The Vogue article says that Lauren has imitated their trademark "arcuate" pocket stitching. Arcuate? I'll admit I didn't know the word so I looked it up. It basically means curved or arched. The jeans design is the oldest known apparel trademark in the US, protected since 1873 so Ralph and his team have some explaining to do. It would be very hard to claim ignorance of one of the most recognizable design styles.

Oh thank you Gwen! If I had a reason to sue that cheap-not-chic retailer, Forever 21, I would in a heartbeat. I hate that store. I went inside once and almost fainted at the smell of cheap synthetic fabric. Once I got my bearings and managed to not pass out, I broke out into hives (true story). Cheap places like that include digging in barrels and fighting off teenagers often gets me all fired up. Nasty.

Perez Hilton has reported that super-mama-singing-mega-star Gwen Stefani is suing the retailer for knocking off her designs. Perez writes...

"In the suit, filed in Los Angeles, Stefani claims that Forever 21 has stolen designs from her Harajku Lovers and L.A.M.B. clothing lines."

I didn't think lambs were very violent creatures but in the fashion industry sometimes you've gotta be tough. Maybe Gwen's maternal instincts are making her protective of her babies ... her clothing lines. I am not sure how this lawsuit is going to pan out because the basis of Forever 21's business is to knock things off. And if its any consolation, the knock offs look just awful -- no one will ever think you are wearing Harajku Lovers or L.A.M.B.

P.S.- the new L.A.M.B fragrance is out of this world, I am going to pick up a bottle at Nordies tomorrow.