Category Archives: Fashion

Kal Raustiala: Knockoffs and Fashion Victims

0
Filed under Fashion

Kal Raustiala, Professor of Law at UCLA, has released a new paper titled Knockoffs and Fashion Victims.  Raustiala, in the paper, questions whether what he terms as the “property rights theory” underlying copyright is applicable in the field of fashion:

A different way to ask this question is: how do fashion designers remain so creative? To a large degree, the answer is that creativity in fashion thrives due to copying, not in spite of copying. Extensive copying accelerates the fashion cycle, rendering once-desired designs to the apparel scrapheap. And extensive copying allows trends, the cornerstone of contemporary fashion, to develop and spread.

In this way copying provides the functional equivalent of the striking new feature on a cellphone–the feature that makes a customer toss out a perfectly usable item in favor of a new one. In fashion, of course, the new design is not an improvement so much as it is a distinction. But this is a distinction with a difference: for many consumers, a key appeal of any garment is whether it sends the right kind of signal. As the garment’s design spreads via copying, the distinction offered by the design is lost—and the shopper is ready to buy a new design. The property rights theory of copyright has virtually no place in this story. And subsequent chapters will show, fashion is not alone in this regard.

fashion attorneys

Copyright in spiral tye-dye designs held to lack sufficient originality to merit copyright protection

2
Filed under Fashion, Originality, Registration

Banzai, Inc. v. Broder Bros. Co. (E.D. Pa. 2009)

When did the Eastern District of Pennsylvania become a hotbed for fun copyright cases?  Judge Bruce W. Kauffman issued an order in another treat of a copyright dispute last Thursday.  Banzai brought suit against Broder Brothers for copyright infringement of its tye-dye fabric designs “USA Ultra Spiral Design” and “Orange Ultra Spiral Design” (pictured below).  The Court dismissed the claims on the basis that the designs lacked sufficient originality to merit exclusive rights.

image image

On the originality of the tye-dye designs

Banzai argued that its copyright was not in the spiral design itself, but for the “original selection of colors and their arrangement” in the spiral design. The Court wasn’t buying. (And is that snark I doth detect?)

Plaintiff admits that the tie-dye spiral design is common and not proprietary to Plaintiff, so its only unique contribution was to select the colors red, white, and blue in one design and orange and yellow in the other. Neither of these selections shows a modicum of creativity. Red, white, and blue are commonly matched colors, perhaps most notably on the American flag. Orange and yellow are adjacent in the spectrum of colors visible to the human eye. Placing these basic, predictable color combinations into a pre-existing design does not satisfy the minimum creativity necessary to establish a valid copyright.

Deference to the Copyright Office’s registration

The Court also addressed the level  of weight to be given to the fact that the Copyright Office registered the designs:

The determination of whether a work is “subject to copyright protection is a matter of law for the Court.” William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 430 F. Supp. 2d 458, 465 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (citing Yankee Candle Co. v. Bridgewater Candle Co., 259 F.3d 25, 34 n.5 (1st Cir. 2001)). The issuance of a certification by the Copyright Office does not resolve the question of whether an item is copyrightable; in the context of a challenge that a work lacks sufficient creativity to receive copyright protection, registration merely places the burden on the defendant to prove that the work is not copyrightable. See Masquerade Novelty, Inc. v. Unique Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 663, 669 & n.7 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Haughey, 430 F. Supp. 2d at 468 (“[The Third Circuit] Court of Appeals has recognized that ‘a claim to copyright is not examined for basic validity before a certification is issued.’” (quoting Masquerade Novelty, 912 F.2d at 667)).

fashion attorneys