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?
RE: Cyberlaw, IP, rivacy in the USA and Europe NB: This site is 100% legal-advice free.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Labels
- ACTA
- Anomymat sur Internet
- Art Law
- Avatars
- Biometry
- blogs
- Book Worm Report
- Censorship
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Compteurs Intelligents
- Contrefaçon
- Cookies
- Copie Privée
- Copyright
- Copyright Fair Use
- Counterfeiting
- Cyberlaw
- Cybersquatting
- Data Breaches
- Data Mining
- Data Privacy
- Database
- Defamation
- Diffamation
- Digital Identity
- DMP
- DNA
- Droit a l'image
- Droit à l'Oubli
- Droit de Réponse
- Droit Moral
- Droits Voisins
- e-commercre
- ECPA
- emails
- Fashion and Copyright
- Fashion and Patents
- Fashion and Trademark
- Fashion News
- FCC
- Fingerprints
- First Amendment
- Flag
- Fourth Amendment
- France
- Freedom of Expression
- Freedom of the Press
- French IP Law
- FTC
- Genetic Privacy
- Google's Book Settlement
- GPS
- Great Britain
- HADOPI
- How to be an Attorney
- HR 5055
- HR 683
- ID cards
- Identité Génétique
- Identity
- Identity Theft
- Indecent Speech
- International Privacy
- Internet of Things
- Internet Privacy
- Internet Security
- IP Address
- Locational Privacy
- LOPPSI 2
- Misc.
- Net Neutrality
- New York Privacy Laws
- New York State
- Online Identity
- Online Impersonation
- Online Privacy
- Pacifica
- Parody
- Passwords
- Patriot Act
- Privacy
- Privacy as a Human Right
- Privacy Breach as a Crime
- privacy in European Union
- Privacy in the EU
- Privacy in the Workplace
- Privacy Settings
- Professions Juridiques
- Propriété Intellectuelle
- Public Domain
- Public Records
- RFID
- Right of Publicity
- RSS
- Safe Harbor
- SCA
- Section 230
- Security Breaches
- Smart Grids
- Social Network
- Sports Law
- Subpoenas
- Surveillance
- Text-Messaging
- The Public Voice
- Three-Strikes
- Thrift Store Tee Shirts
- Trade Dress
- Trademark
- Trademark and Marketing
- Trademark Dilution
- Trademark Fair Use
- Trademark Infringement
- UK
- US Privacy Laws
- Vie Privee
- Virtual Worlds
- Web 2.0
- WHOIS
- Yankees
No comments:
Post a Comment