Coach v. Target

The Wall Street Journal reports that Coach filed a suit against Target in federal court last week. Coach claims that Target sold a counterfeit Coach bag, whereas Target claims that it is a real Coach bag. Target is not licensed to distribute Coach bags.

The WSJ article mentions HR 683 as one of the reasons designers and manufacturers are getting more aggressive protecting their brands and designs. Right now, trademark law, not copyright law, is the law that designers may use to protect their designs, claiming trade dress rights in design. American copyright law is not protective of designs. HR 683, if voted into law, will protect famous marks against blurring and tarnishing. One can argue that selling a Coach bag at Target tarnishes the brand. The shopping experience is hardly the same. Well, Coach does not sell pop corn and cheap hot dogs inside their store, for instance.

The WSJ article quotes a Target statement that describes its clients as "guests." The goods sold at high-end stores are becoming more and more irrelevant, but creating an original shopping experience is becoming the most important aspect of selling, for luxury retailers and discounters alike. Wal Mart is getting preppy, and may even benefit from selling khaki pants to its employees. But I digress. Is selling high end goods out of their original retail environment blurring?