Louis Vuiton Case Study

Can we license something like blue jeans or even a collar? That would be rather impractical for the fashion industry, seeing that this is where creativity is urged. The fashion industry is largely unshackled of the same copyright laws, licenses and guidelines that grip the film and music industry. However, trademarks are the only aspect that is protected in the fashion industry. As a result, this lack of intellectual protection (IP) for fashion has directly led to its huge success. Blakely expands on this point by indicating four advantages of how the lack of copyright protection has helped the fashion flourish. First, this concept has enabled the “Democratization of fashion”. This states that we have a greater variety of fashion aspects to choose from. The second advantage is that fashion trends are now being established faster in the world. Since knock-offs are being produced faster, designers are trying to stay ahead of the game by producing more complex products. In fact, Stuart Weitzman, a shoe designer,

Some companies have a foot in both the human and pet fashion door. Rubie’s Costume Company is the world’s largest designer, manufacturer and distributor of Halloween costumes and accessories for humans. However, they also now have an entire selection of pet

The district court found that Crown owned a valid copyright in its diamond-shaped spinning trophy and that Discount had access to Crown's design through its receipt of Crown's 2006 catalog and its monitoring of Crown's products. The district court

Louis Vuitton “was established in France in 1854 by Louis Vuitton and became known as one of the oldest French luxury fashion houses” in the industry (Pearce & Robinson, 2013, p. 14-2). The firm’s products range from high quality “leather goods, handbags, trunks, shoes, watches, jewelry, and accessories”; manufactured by highly skilled and expensive laborers in France (Forbes.com, 2016). In addition, Louis Vuitton market their products “in 50 countries with more than 460 shops and generates more than €7-billion ($9.5-billion U.S.) in annual sales” (Wendlandt, 2013).

Ling Nan ZHENG, Ren Zhu Yang, Yun Zhen Huang, Wen Qin Lin, Sai Bing Wang, Ye Biao Yang, Cui Zhen Lin, Rong Yun Zheng, Hui Fang Lin, Xiu Ying Zheng, Jin Ping Lin, Hui Ming Dong, Yu Bing Luo, Sau Chi Kwok, Sai Xian Tang, Yi Zhen Lin, Rui Fang Zhang, Mei Juan Yu, Mei Ying Li, Qin Fang Qiu, Yi Mei Lin, Mei Zhu Dong, Fung Lam, Xiu Zhu Ye, Sing Kei Lam, and Xue Jin Lin, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY APPAREL COMPANY INC., Albert Nigri, and Hagai Laniado, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Ngon Fong Yuen, 88 Fashion Inc., Top Five Sportswear, Inc., S.P.R. Sportswear, Inc. and 91 Fashion, Inc., Defendants, Lai Huen Yam, a/k/a Steven Yam, 998 Fashions, Inc. and 103 Fashion Inc.,

“Aleah, that is so ugly,” my friends exclaimed as I eagerly pulled out my brand new pants from their perfectly packaged shipping box. “But they’re Michael Kors!” I argued, as though it increased their appeal. The truth was, the price tag read $78.00, and they were completely see through. Within society, there are numerous people who spend thousands of dollars on designer clothing that is not considered attractive street fashion or good quality. Often, the reason clothing is priced highly is because it includes a logo to advertise the brand and proclaim that it is “the cool thing to wear” while pressuring surrounding people to buy from the same designer as an attempt to become cool as well.

On May 30, 2000 The Calvin Klein family filed a lawsuit against Warnaco Group Inc for eighteen counts of trademark infringement, trademark dilution and intentional misrepresentation. Nearly a month later Warnaco answered with a counter suit, denying the major allegations and justifying the dilution to falling within the scope of the two parities licensing agreement. The case study brings forth information regarding fashion retailing, distribution practices and even the licensing practices expected within the marketplace, however as a reader one should keep in mind that during the millennium “licensing

The Lanham Act defines the term trademark to include “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof . . . to identify and distinguish his or her goods . . . and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.” The United States Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. federal courts have interpreted the definition liberally allowing a breath of nontraditional marks to be registered if it.

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a lollipop? How many times can a company get away with offending the public? These questions have a lot more in common than someone might think. Everyone knows that the clever owl that asks us the lollipop questions, gets impatient with counting and then simply provides us with the answer of the ‘world may never know’. Similarly, the amount of times Urban Outfitters has offending the public or will in the future without receiving any punishment is too large to count, therefore we give the same impassive answer that ‘the world may never know’. In the United States of America, we are lucky enough to have freedom of speech and expression. However good or bad, we have the right to say or wear what we want without punishment. Though it is common sense that companies that sell merchandise are held to higher standards. Unfortunately some do not understand this unspoken rule, not only that but they abuse this right. The argument lies primarily with Urban Outfitters who has produced a multitude of clothing items that offend the wider public! Businesses should not be permitted to produce merchandise that offends the public because it hurts many people(s), encourages a negative mindset, and is used purely for publicity.

Louis XIV had a passion for glory and used it to fight four wars because he was motivated by personal and dynastic considerations.

LVMH, known as Moët Hennessy • Louis Vuitton, is a French conglomerate and the largest producer of luxury goods in the world. LVMH was formed in 1987 with the merger of Moet et Chandon a champagne manufacturer, Hennessy a cognac manufacturer, and Louis Vuitton a fashion house.

To those who are not familiar with the processes within the fashion industry, this world of style is characterized by a peaceful coexistence between all the stakeholders. To those in the know however, this is far from the truth with the fashion industry. The value of the United Kingdom fashion industry is large contributing to about 20 billion pounds into the country’s economy on an annual basis. To have a better understanding, the contribution made by the fashion industry to the country’s Gross Domestic Product is almost twice that being brought in by car manufacturers which is valued at 10.1 billion so fashion is no doubt a major business and clothing designs one of the core assets. In considering this, it is therefore a surprise that businesses that are operating within this industry within this industry are not given the opportunity to do more to protect the designs that they have. This paper puts forward the assertion that based on the case law of J Choo(Jersey) Limited v Towerstone Limited and Others, the system of intellectual property protection available in United Kingdom law is not fit for use in the fashion industry in its present condition.

One of the biggest driving forces in the fashion industry nowadays is the continuous introduction of new trends and the opportunity for designers to display their creativity. So, when that individuality is stolen or copied from a designer, it can produce uneasy consequences. Known as “design piracy”, this widespread reproduction of designs has actually been around for decades. Not much has been done at a federal level to prevent the moral and economic repercussions that stem from it. However, despite the fact that designers lose both independent recognition and profit for their work, in the long run, fashion piracy actually helps grow the industry by swiftly moving styles through society to make way for the next line of innovative

Burberry Group plc (Burberry) is into the global luxury sector. It works in the designing, marketing and sourcing of outerwear, women’s wear, men’s wear, non-apparel and children’s wear categories. It distributes through a diversified network of retail, wholesale and licensing channels worldwide. The company operates its business in three ways by region, by product and by channel. Burberry distributes its products in Europe, Spain, Americas and Asia Pacific through retail and wholesale channels and with selective license arrangements. In addition, it licenses third parties to manufacture and distribute products using the Burberry trademarks. It categorizes

LVMH’s brand portfolio is a catalogue of the finest things money can buy. Arnault said, “A Star brand is timeless, modern, fast growing and highly profitable.”[iii] LVMH has positioned its brands strongly in the luxury segment offering more than 50 different brands under their five core competencies. LVMH has been successful through all of their various brands in their portfolio giving them each their independence and creativity. “LVMH is well known for leaving much operational and marketing freedom to the various brands it owns.”[iv] “LVMH has done an excellent job of brand positioning, says Ben Cavender, senior analyst at China Market Research Group. It has succeeded in securing the particularly enviable position of gaining a following among the top percentage of China’s wealthy. As the financial crisis stretches on, LVMH customers in China still have money to spend.[v] “LVMH’s brand imaging, which relies heavily on pushing its European heritage, is so successful that it has benefited other brands by proxy, says Paul French, one of the founders of Access Asia, a group dedicated to tracking regional consumer and marketing trends. “Everyone hangs on the coattails of Louis Vuitton’s brand imaging in China.”[vi]