As if emblems, and copyright, and patents weren’t complicated sufficient (we tried to shed somewhat gentle on this topic in a latest publish, “Can Jewellery Designs be Copyrighted?”), getting into into the authorized fray is a brand new go well with filed this yr in New York by Van Cleef and Arpels in opposition to Good Ice Positive Jewelers.
Within the go well with, Van Cleef & Arpels are alleging that Good Ice Positive Jewelers has infringed upon their trademark ‘Alhambra’ jewellery design, by promoting jewellery that imitates the Alhambra commerce gown. The Alhambra commerce gown is described as
“a three-dimensional configuration of a jewellery component comprising repeated and equally spaced quatrefoil items every of the identical dimension related by chain hyperlinks. Every quatrefoil piece has an periphery that’s beaded with an interior portion that’s flat. Every quatrefoil piece additionally has 4 bigger beads positioned at central factors inside it. The interior portion of the quatrefoil piece is within the colour grey for shading functions solely. The chain hyperlinks proven in damaged traces are meant solely to point the positioning of the mark and are usually not a part of the mark. “
The criticism in opposition to Good Ice Positive Jewelers was made beneath the Lanham Act and alleges commerce gown infringement and unfair competitors.
What makes the Van Cleef and Arpels v. Good Ice Jewelers lawsuit attention-grabbing?
What’s attention-grabbing about this explicit criticism is that Van Cleef and Arpels are usually not suing Good Ice for attempting to promote its jewellery as if it have been real Van Cleef and Arpels jewellery. The truth is, the corporate clearly advertises their items as look-a-like jewellery, not as originals. Which means that individuals buying their jewellery are usually not mislead into considering they’ve bought real Van Cleef and Arpels model jewellery.
Slightly, the lawsuit asserts that the confusion and misrepresentation come up within the market post-purchase, as different individuals who see the bought jewellery piece on its proprietor will consider that the jewellery is definitely a real Van Cleef and Arpels’ article. Most circuit courts have held that post-purchase confusion does meet the “chance of confusion” requirement stipulated beneath the federal Lanham Act, which prohibits the usage of a trademark in a method that might deceive or trigger confusion in regards to the origin of the product.
Van Cleef and Arpels are in search of a everlasting injunction in opposition to Good Ice Positive Jewelers that might make them cease utilizing the Alhambra commerce gown. Van Cleef and Arpels additionally need Good Ice to recall and switch over any supplies that violate the Alhambra commerce gown and so they need the corporate to pay damages for the alleged infringement as properly legal professional charges accrued by Van Cleef and Arpel on account of the case.
An identical case…
One other latest instance of 1 firm bringing go well with in opposition to one other beneath the trademark infringement principle of post-sale confusion is the trademark go well with by the Levi Strauss firm in opposition to Paris luxurious home, Kenzo. The product design in query is a pocket tab that Kenzo utilized in a brand new line of denims it launched. Levi Strauss claims that they personal trademark rights in pocket-tab design and that by promoting denims with an analogous pocket tab, Kenzo was infringing on these rights. Below the speculation of “post-sale confusion”, Levi Strauss is making an attempt to indicate that individuals will likely be confused after they see their trademark pocket-tab on Kenzo attire.
