Merin Sebastian, Author at La

Protecting the Unique Design of Luxury Watches through Intellectual Property Law: A Deep Dive into the Designs Act

January 9, 2025

Introduction Luxury watches are a blend of craftsmanship, innovation, and aesthetic appeal. Each luxury timepiece, whether an elegant dress watch or a sporty chronograph, has a unique design that sets it apart from other timepieces in the market. For luxury brands, these designs are not just about aesthetics—they are valuable assets that represent their identity and craftsmanship. Therefore, protecting the uniqueness of these designs is critical, and Intellectual Property (IP) law, specifically the Designs Act, plays a crucial role in safeguarding these creations. In this blog, we will explore how IP law, focusing on the Designs Act, can protect the unique design of luxury watches. The Role of Intellectual Property in Luxury Watch Design Protection IP law is essential for protecting the intangible assets of creators and businesses. In the context of luxury watches, these intangible assets are primarily the designs that make a timepiece unique. Luxury watchmakers invest significant resources in design, blending innovation with aesthetics to create masterpieces. These designs are what distinguish high-end watches from mass-produced timepieces. The key forms of IP protection for watch designs include: Copyrights (for artistic works), Trademarks (for brand identity), Patents (for mechanical innovations), Designs (for the visual appearance of the product). Of these, Design Rights under the Designs Act are especially relevant when it comes to protecting the unique visual design elements of a luxury watch. Understanding the Designs Act The Designs Act, a significant piece of legislation in many jurisdictions, protects the aesthetic features of a product. A design is defined as the visual appearance of a product, including its shape, configuration, pattern, ornament, or composition of lines or colors. For luxury watches, this encompasses everything from the shape of the case and bezel to the layout of the dial, the design of the hands, and the bracelet or strap. In India, for instance, the Designs Act, of 2000, protects the new or original designs of industrial products. The Act allows designers to register their designs and grants them exclusive rights over their use for a set period (usually 10 years, extendable). This means that no one else can copy, replicate, or reproduce the registered design without the owner’s permission. Protection Under the Designs Act for Luxury Watches Luxury watchmakers are deeply concerned about the theft or imitation of their designs. A popular design in the market can quickly be copied, leading to market confusion and potential revenue loss. The Designs Act provides several layers of protection for luxury watchmakers. Registration of Design One of the primary protections under the Designs Act is the registration of a design. A luxury watch brand can register the unique visual design of their timepieces, which includes features like: The shape of the case (round, square, or unique form). The dial design (font style, pattern, and color). The strap design (material, shape, and pattern). The bezel and other ornamental aspects of the timepiece. Once a design is registered, it is protected under law, and the designer or brand has the exclusive right to use it. Anyone who tries to copy or reproduce the design without authorization risks facing legal action, including penalties for infringement. Novelty and Originality For a design to be protected under the Designs Act, it must be new and original. Luxury watch brands often go to great lengths to create unique, eye-catching designs that stand out in the marketplace. The novelty requirement ensures that no one can take inspiration from another existing watch design and make minor alterations. This is especially critical in the luxury sector, where even small changes to an iconic design can significantly affect the brand’s reputation. Scope of Protection Once a design is registered, it is protected for a period of up to 10 years (in most jurisdictions). The designer has exclusive rights to use, license, or sell the design during this period. This exclusive right provides luxury watch brands with the ability to control how their designs are used and prevents unauthorized reproductions or imitations. It’s an essential tool to maintain brand exclusivity in a competitive market. Prevention of Infringement The Designs Act helps in curbing the infringement of design by providing clear mechanisms for enforcement. If a counterfeit luxury watch brand attempts to launch a replica of a protected design, the original designer can take legal action against the infringer, which may include: Injunctions (stopping the infringing company from selling or producing the counterfeit). Damages (compensating for the loss in sales or reputation). Seizure of counterfeit goods (to prevent further circulation of fake products). By enforcing design rights, luxury watch brands can protect their reputation and maintain the distinctiveness of their timepieces. International Protection In the globalized world of luxury watches, international protection is vital. Many luxury watchmakers sell their products worldwide, and they need protection not only in their home country but also in other markets where their products are sold. Under the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs, brands can protect their watch designs in multiple countries by filing a single international application. This system helps luxury watch brands secure their designs across different markets without having to register them individually in each country. It’s particularly useful for protecting high-end designs in global markets like the US, the EU, and Asia. Conclusion Luxury watches are not just timekeeping devices; they are symbols of craftsmanship, heritage, and exclusivity. Protecting the unique design of these timepieces is vital for luxury watch brands, and the Designs Act plays a central role in ensuring that brands retain control over their creations. By registering their designs, watchmakers can safeguard their innovative work from copycats and counterfeits, thereby maintaining their brand’s prestige and protecting their investment in design innovation. With the growing importance of global markets, it’s more important than ever for luxury watch brands to leverage IP law to preserve the distinctiveness of their iconic designs.

French Girl Style: Towards Sustainibility

January 9, 2025

Introduction The fast fashion industry is one of the fastest growing ones on the market these days, with manufacturers putting out billions of clothing items annually. But all this growth has come at the cost of our planet Earth. The ever-evolving trend cycle has created a demand for the ever-increasing rate of production of new articles. Such a system not only functions off of unethical labour practices which endanger the lives and livelihoods of workers but also leads to environmental devastation as scarce resources like water are funnelled into mass producing low quality clothing that is designed to be discarded after a single use. Since the fast fashion model involves making the latest styles available to the masses as soon as possible, it means that corners are cut not only when it comes to ethics and sustainability, but also quality. Companies have no incentive to change their business model as it is profitable for them to both manufacture and sell poor quality items – it keeps their production costs low and sales high as consumers often have to buy the same items twice due to its poor construction, leading to clothing waste. Often, companies and consumers alike are ill-equipped to deal with such huge amounts of used clothing, leading them to be dumped in either third world countries or landfills. In order to address the adverse environmental impact of fast-fashion companies and curb overproduction and overconsumption, attempts have been made by many nations to create legislations that regulate and improve the production and sale practices of these corporations. One salient example of this is France’s anti-fast fashion bill. What does the Bill entail Widely dubbed as the anti-fast fashion bill, the bill was proposed and unanimously passed in the National Assembly, France’s Lower House of Parliament on March 14th, 2024. The Bill is aimed at limiting the environmental pollution and climate catastrophe that is exacerbated by fast fashion retail giants and it does so by proposing five main components. Defining Fast-fashion: The bill seeks to establish a clear definition of what constitutes fast fashion.While the bill itself has not put forth strict criterions, the government will formulate this based on the rate of production of clothes by the company. There will be a threshold set for the amount of clothing produced annually, and crossing this to-be-determined line will deem the company to be fast fashion. This is an important criterion to ascertain as for many years, companies have managed to evade the curtailment of unsustainable clothing manufacturing by touting that the category of fast fashion is too wide to be defined and that there was no way to determine which manufacturer would come under it. Another argument used is that since they have a relatively smaller stock of items compared to slow fashion brands, fast fashion retailers can produce the latest styles without having much leftover clothes. The Bill cuts through to the root of this issue by prescribing the total number of clothing items which can be produced. Transparency of Information: The Bill makes it mandatory for manufacturers to disclose information related to the sustainability and overall environmental footprint of the item to the customers so that they can make well-informed choices while shopping. Having to disclose the reality of their production practices and materials used in the making of an item would incentivise companies to better their manufacturing processes in order to attain brand loyalty from customers based on sustainability, instead of affordability. By mandating transparency in both the supply chain stages and the final sale stage, the Bill allows consumers to see through green-washing techniques and invest in brands that ethically and environmentally aligns with them. Imposing a Sin Tax: There shall be an eco-contribution penalty on fast fashion items wherein textiles, clothes and accessories shall be given an environmental score. Products with bad scores shall incur a penalty of €5 per item, which has a scope of annually increasing by €1, extending to €10 per item by 2030. Sin taxes are imposed on those goods which are perceived as having a high social cost. By imposing what is effectively a sin tax on fast fashion, France is putting forth that buying such items is as unhealthy and ill-advised as buying substances like nicotine. Investing into Home-Grown Companies: A portion of the money accumulated from the above-mentioned sin tax is set to be invested into environmentally friendly, sustainable French brands. This serves two purposes. It is a protectionist policy aimed at fostering a less competitive environment for domestic fashion brands to thrive. It is also a financial motivation factor meant to incentivise brands into developing more sustainable production practices. Banning Fast Fashion Advertisements: The Bill aims to ban all advertising related to fast fashion brands and retailers in France. A large portion of sales for these companies are accumulated through offline advertisements on billboards and television and online advertisements on various social media platforms like X (previously Twitter), Instagram and TikTok. By putting an end to this, France would be restraining the wide reach of these retailers, thus limiting sales and creating space for more sustainable brands to take their place in the attention economy. Conclusion While the Bill still requires assent from the French Senate to become law, it has spurred a widespread conversation on sustainability in fashion and the role that a country’s legislature can safeguard and promote it. France’s anti-fast fashion bill is a much-needed initiative in today’s environmental landscape. By emphasising on limiting unethical and unsustainable production, encouraging transparency and fostering the growth of sustainable brands, France is setting an example for the world at large when it comes to regulating fast fashion

Shein Vs Temu: Fast Fashion Wars

January 9, 2025

Shein’s allegations Copyright Infringement – Shein alleged that their product designs and photos were being utilised by Temu in order to sell goods without permission. This not only violates Shein’s copyright, but it also gives consumers the wrong impression as to the goods they are supposedly purchasing. By copying and displaying unmodified or slightly modified versions of the listing images, Temu aimed to directly compete with Shein. Consumers who base their purchasing decisions off of the image would be buying inauthentic products under a false guise. Misleading Advertising Tactics– Shein claimed that Temu was using misleading marketing tactics in order to drive traffic onto their website to boost sales. Temu allegedly paid social media influencers to market its products by comparing them to Shein, stating that its affordability and quality were superior. This tactic has had an effect on Shein’s business model and brand reputation, with customers getting the impression that the company’s quality is inferior and thus, buying less from them. Trade Secret Theft – Temu has been alleged to have directed one of its employees to steal sensitive data from Shein. The employee illegally accessed confidential data regarding the best-selling products, which allowed Temu to understand consumer preferences and replicate already successful designs and products. By sharing this information with its suppliers, Temu was unjustly enriching itself by benefiting off of Shein’s data. Internal pricing information was also stolen, which allowed Temu to undercut Shein’s pricing and offer goods at cheaper rates to attract more customers. Fraudulent Practices– Shein accused Temu and its agents of having created accounts and profiles on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, through which they falsely impersonated Shein, causing confusion and distrust amongst customers. Through their unauthorized usage of Shein’s trademarks, customers were allegedly lured into clicking on links that led them to Temu’s own website, utilising misdirection to divert sales away from Shein. Unethical Business Practices – The company also accused Temu of engaging in unethical business practices that undermined Shein’s supplier relationships, alleging that Temu controls sellers’ activities and encourages them to infringe copyright laws for profit. Previous Legal Disputes This is not the first legal battle between the two retail giants. In March 2023, Shein had filed a case against Temu for violating its intellectual property rights and engaging in copyright infringement by copying Shein’s product images for falsely advertising Temu goods. In December 2023, Temu filed a lawsuit, claiming that Shein had engaged in a “mafia-style” scheme to intimidate and restrict suppliers into exclusive agreements to stifle market competition, thus interfering illegally with Temu’s ongoing business activities. Atop all of this, both retailers come under scrutiny by other fashion corporations, like H&M and Uniqlo for copying their original designs. Additionally, environmentalist watchdog organizations and research centres have launched investigations into the environmental impact of both companies. They have been severely criticised for their negative environmental impact via pollution and non-sustainability oriented production processes. Implications for the future If Shein were to win this lawsuit, it would set a precedent that calls for stricter enforcement of intellectual property laws within the fast-fashion landscape. While historically the industry is constantly wrought with intellectual property rights allegations and lawsuits, this case may deter companies from engaging in practices perceived as infringing on competitors’ designs or trade secrets. Conversely, if Temu prevails, it may lead to other companies adopting similarly aggressive competitive strategies that violate existing intellectual property compliance regulations. The case would also impact consumer choice as it could result in companies restructuring their business models and pricing strategies, leading to higher prices and lesser choices for consumers. Conclusion The ongoing legal battle between Shein and Temu highlights the ever-present tensions within the fast fashion industry regarding intellectual property rights and competitive practices. With the jury-based trial set for 2026, the result of this lawsuit has the potential to completely reshape the landscape of intellectual property rights. No matter who wins, it will undoubtedly change how we navigate the online fashion marketplace.

Dior Backstage: Under Fire For Exploitative Labour Practices

January 9, 2025

Introduction What makes a handbag expensive? Is it the raw materials used, like the rare italian leather, the smooth metal clasps or the expensive inner lining? Is it unique handcrafting? Or is it the blood, sweat and tears of exploited factory workers? There have been many instances of grave allegations of labour law violations against several fashion brands in 2024. From affordable retailers like H&M and Zara to luxury designers like Giorgio Armani have undergone scrutiny from public and court alike, as allegations of workers’ rights violations and unjust labour practices were uncovered. One such company that was brought into the limelight was Dior. It stands out as a shining example of everything wrong with current production practices and how exactly courts can tackle such issues in the future. The recent copyright and trademark controversy surrounding the “Chill Guy” meme has sparked widespread discussions about intellectual property rights in the digital age. While the unauthorised usage of an artist’s work is certainly not a new issue in today’s internet landscape, the “Chill Guy” meme certainly proves an interesting case study on how artists can legally fight back against the blatant misuse of their artwork. Pulling Back the Curtains In June 2024, it was revealed that an investigation was being done by a Milan court into Christian Dior Italia SRL-owned Dior Manufacturers SRL, a subsidiary manufacturer entrusted with creating Dior branded handbags to be sold in retail. Enquiries were being made into four of its suppliers, namely Pelletteria Elisabetta Yang SRL, New Leather Italy SRLS, AZ Operations SRLS, and Davide Albertario Milano SRL, that functioned in and around the region of Milan, Italy. It was reported that the working conditions of these supplier units were horrendous. Workers were expected to work long hours, often extending into the night. They were not given time off, even for holidays, By ensuring that they remained on-site, the supplier was able to maximise their work hours. The Milanese judge specified that workers were made to sleep at the workplace to ensure 24 hour availability. The health and safety of the labourers were also given no thought as it was reported that safety measures were removed from machinery in order to make them work at a faster rate. The hygiene conditions of these workplaces were found lacking. The supplier also employed illegal immigrants, as 2 out of 32 staff members were found to be undocumented while another 7 did not have sufficient documents. Employing people who do not have citizenship allows contractors to exploit their labour as they often go unprotected by majority of labour laws that govern the land. Such workers also shy away from unionising or approaching authorities for help as they would be scrutinized for their lack of documentation. By utilising exploitative labour practices and cutting corners wherever possible, suppliers were able to manufacture handbags at the mere price of $57 dollars, which then went on to be advertised and sold to consumers by Dior for an exorbitant $2711. Customers who choose to purchase luxury goods do so due to factors like brand integrity and heritage, craftsmanship, quality of materials and social prestige. By investing a large amount of money into a Dior handbag, they are buying into the brand’s social history. But exploitative labour practices produce cheap goods of low quality, which are then marked up to a luxury price tag. This is unfair to both consumers as well as workers. The Italian Competition Authority (ICA) is also conducting investigations into Christian Dior for not paying their workers living wages. Dior, Do Detter The Milanese court appointed a commissioner to oversee the functioning of Dior’s suppliers, in order to ensure their production practices and supply chain are up to regulatory standards. It is to be noted that it is the supplier and contractors who have come under scrutiny, with criminal investigations being made into them, and not Dior. By placing the company under court or judicial administration through the appointment of a special commissioner, the legal system takes on an active role in ensuring that companies engage in ethical production. It allows brands to better themselves whilst also continuing on manufacturing. Through their decision, the court highlights the necessity of brand accountability for labour practices. Conclusion Ethical consumption is often touted as the solution to the sustainability crisis at hand today. But one cannot consume ethically that which is produced unethically. Rather than blindly putting profits above all else, it is important for brands to be aware of the production processes that their subsidiaries engage in. Exploitation grants cheap labour, but it is stoutly unjust to engage in human rights violations simply to increase one’s profit margins. In an era where courts and consumers alike are demanding more transparency and accountability from brands, the Dior controversy acts as a warning to other retailers to invest in ethical labour to ensure a sustainable future for both the planet, and the brands themselves.

Upcycling Trends: Refashioning Intellectual Property Rights

January 2, 2025

Introduction The fashion industry is made up of hundreds of thousands of designers, creative directors, artisans and labourers who all work in conjunction to produce articles of clothing for consumption. Some design the clothes, some work either to handcraft or mass produce them. Others are involved in advertising and marketing the item to reach its desired target demographic. However, the creativity and innovation underlying fashion design does not end at the stage of sale. It is not true that an item arrives at its ultimate pinnacle of design upon the conclusion of the production process. After reaching the hands of the purchaser, there exists avenues for the product to be redesigned, with the first sale simply acting as an opportunity for expansion of creatively reimaging the already existing item. Especially in the current age, where the threat of environmental degradation and climate crisis are constant companions, this reimagination is gaining more mainstream popularity in the form of clothing upcycling. But this practice is accompanied by concerns about intellectual property rights of creatives and designers. What is Upcycling The fashion industry is one of the largest producers of waste in the world, making it imperative for clothing items that already exist in the fashion economy to be utilised to their fullest extent. This can be done in numerous eco-conscious ways that are aimed towards extending the lifespan of items, like thrifting and second-hand consignment shopping. Upcycling is a prominent method through which clothes can gain a new life. This process involves pre-existing clothes and accessories being refashioned into new and innovative pieces. Upcycling is mainly done in two ways- either by utilising components of the original products to make new goods, or by adding elements onto an existing product. Since the original product is being improved upon, it gains additional value. A distinctive benefit to upcycling is that due to the updation being done on already manufactured base products, each individual item is often limited in stock, making each design uniquely desirable to consumers. A type of upcycling that has gained popularity in previous years is that of upcycling designer goods. Artists sell products that utilise branded goods from luxury fashion houses like Gucci, Chanel, Balenciaga etc. as its constituent materials. These products often include the iconic brand identifiers of these luxury houses, like the double C clasps of Chanel and the LV print of Louis Vuitton bags. As the reworked article includes these trademarked elements in their design, they may infringe on the intellectual property rights of the original designers. (Il) Legalities of Upcycling Brands who hold registered trademarks of certain patterns and logos can claim trademark infringement against artists who utilise such marks on their upcycled products without authorisation. One of upcycling’s central issues is that it creates confusion amongst consumers about the origin of the product. Customers may fall into the trap of buying an upcycled handbag or jacket under the belief that it is produced by the brand themselves. We can utilise a case study of the beloved luxury brand, Chanel, to further understand this issue. In 2024, Chanel Inc filed a case of trademark infringement against Shiver + Duke LLC, for their usage of vintage Chanel buttons. These buttons, which once belonged on clothing items like jackets, were upcycled into jewelry, which Chanel said looked similar to the brand’s own offerings. The company claimed that by Shiver+Duke putting out designs that featured Chanel’s trademarks, consumer confusion was likely being created in the market. Doctrine of First Sale Chanel also argued that since the buttons were repurposed to be part of jewelry, the defendants could not claim trademark exhaustion, which begs the question- how does one exhaust a trademark? According to the doctrine of first sale or the principle of exhaustion, a purchaser of a good is entitled to resell or loan that item to any person, without the permission of the brand. This means that once a sale has been complete, the brand no longer has any say on how the sold product shall be utilised. They cannot claim trademark infringement after the dress or belt has entered the flow of the fashion economy. The exception to this principle is when the good being resold is materially different from its original counterpart. When the item has been materially altered, then trademark violation cases can stand against upcyclers. By arguing that Shiver + Duke made material alterations to the buttons, Chanel rendered the principle of exhaustion unusable. Conclusion The realm of upcycling is a hard arena to navigate for both brands and independent upcyclers. While courts have mostly sided with trademark owners when it comes to intellectual property rights violation cases, there still exists space for upcyclers to continue their sustainability forward business models. By disclosing clearly that the item is upcycled and holds no association with the original brand, the risk of infringement can be lessened. Another way is for independent upcyclers to create a legal relationship with original brands. By establishing a licensing agreement, upcyclers can exercise creative freedom without fear of IP infringement while brands can oversee quality control to ensure that brand integrity is maintained. In such a creatively nebulous landscape, it is important for better laws to be formed for the protection of both brands and independent artists in order to further goals of sustainable fashion.

Vive La Vivienne: A Brand Case Study Of Vivienne Westwood

January 2, 2025

Introduction A mainstay of both the punk scene and the high fashion world, Vivienne Westwood stands apart as a once in a lifetime icon whose work has been massively influential to counter cultural tastemaking for the past 70 decades. A name synonymous with British fashion, she emerged as a revolutionary designer who played a pivotal role in reshaping popular trends through an alternative lens. Brand Founder and History Born Vivienne Isabel Swire on April 8, 1941, in Glossop, Derbyshire, to a cobbler father and cotton mill worker mother, Westwood did not participate in the fashion scene much. Coming from a working class background, she was more focused on earning a living rather than focusing on her passion, training as an arts teacher. But she could not stay away from her true calling for too long. She divorced her first husband Derek Westwood in 1965, and soon after she met the manager of punk band Sex Pistols, Malcom McLaren. The two would go on to have a torrid love affair, and would collaborate to create their iconic fashion boutique on 430 King’s Road, which would later develop into the hub of punk culture in London. The shop underwent many redbrands, and was finally named World’s End in 1980. While Vivienne never let go of her punk roots, she did dive into the world of high fashion with her first fashion show, titled “Pirates”. It was inspired by the sea rebels, and consisted of ballooning shapes that went against the tight silhouettes of mainstream 70s trends. Some other notable shows include the A/W 93/94’s Anglomania wherein she introduced the McAndreas Tartan, a pattern that has been officially registered under the Scottish Register of Tartan Act, 2008. After the 2000s, Vivienne Westwood has made a pointed effort to move towards ethical production for a sustainable future. She engaged in climate activism, both through awareness creation and through her collections like her collaboration with Project quid to create accessories with dead stock silk, instead of promoting fresh production. She has also worked alongside Greenpeace for the Save The Arctic initiative and United Nations to aid in their Ethical Fashion Initiative. Vivienne also created Active Resistance to Propaganda Manifesto which details her cultural and environmental concerns and acts as a call to action to create a sustainable future for the betterment of society. Popular Iconography & Products The Orb logo of Vivienne Westwood is highly recognizable, being utilised as graphics on sweaters, t-shirts, labels as well as jewelry. The logo was created in 1986 and it is fashioned in an aristocratic style, consisting of a globus cruciger, which is an orb with a cross on top symbolising British monarchy paired with the planetary rings around the orb, inspired by Saturn. The Orb logo has been popularized due to the virality of the Vivienne Westwood pearl necklaces and chokers, worn by contemporary it-girls like Bella Hadid, Madison Beer and Dua Lipa. The trend gained internet virality, causing manufacturers to dupe the necklace’s design. Similarly to the necklace, Vivienne Westwood corsets and stays depicting rococo style art grew in popularity in 2020, when celebrities like FKA Twigs and Barbie Ferreira. Some other products that catapulted Westwood into the fashion limelight include the mini-crini which combines the Victorian crinoline with the mini skirt, bondage pants that feature straps going across the legs and rocking shoes inspired by traditional Japenese okobo footwear. Legal Controversies Like many luxury brands, Westwood has undergone some legal issues regarding trademark infringement. In 2011, Vivienne Westwood won a case against internet clothing provider Anthony Knight for copying her popular trademarks and utilising them in his clothing designs. Westwood claimed that he had committed trademark and copyright infringement and also fought the validity of certain trademarks registered by Knight which were close copies of hers’. The Patents County Court found in her favour, declaring that even though small alterations were made to the Westwood marks, average consumers would recognize a mark as a whole, making Knight liable for trademark infringement. A mediation conducted by the World Intellectual Property Arbitration and Mediation Center in 2018, as Latimo S.A., who is the holder of Vivienne Westwood’s portfolio of intellectual property rights filed against Xinnet Whois Privacy Pro Service / Li Xin Jun for utilising the domain name <viviennewestwood-sale.com>. The former was the holder of several of Westwood’s trademark registrations. Eventually, the administrative panel held that the domain name should be transferred to Latimo S.A. Brand Competitors Westwood occupies a coveted space in the luxury market, as her pieces are not only haute couture but it is steeped in British tradition, symbolism and its grassroots Punk origins. While this same magic cannot be recreated by any other brand, Westwood does face competitors in the form of alternative designers who serve cutting-edge contemporary fashion like: Alexander McQueen: McQueen’s avant-garde designs are well known in the fashion community for being edgy pieces of wearable art. The sleek and modular garment with their dark themes combined with theatrical presentation stands as a worthy competitor against Westwood. Jean Paul Gaultier: Known for his extravagant collections and modern punk aesthetic, French designer Jean Paul Gaultier has been well-established in the alternative luxury fashion arena for many decades. Conclusion Vivienne Westwood passed away on December 29th, 2022 at the age of 81, but her legacy will live on forevermore as having changed the landscape of luxury fashion with her creative innovations rooted in history. She will always be beloved, not only for her contributions as a tastemaker of alternative luxury fashion, but also for her activism for a sustainable future.

The Hunger Games – Novo Nordisk’s Legal War Against Ozempic Dupes

January 1, 2025

Introduction While we were previously in an era of body positivity and acceptance, it seems like the tide has turned. The return of the low waist, coupled with other emerging fashion trends, reveals that the age of the heroin chic body ideal has yet again returned, serendipitously coinciding with the meteoric rise in usage of weight loss medications. But this time around, the pursuit of the trending body ideal is not only boosting sales for luxury fashion retailers. Pharmaceutical companies like Novo Nordisk, that produce semaglutide-based weight loss medications like Ozempic and Wegovy are witnessing an unparalleled boost in stock and sales. As the demand for any and all methods to achieve thinness is steadily increasing, it has motivated companies to strictly regulate their copyrights, trademarks and patents in order to block others from unjustly profiting off of their innovation. Novo Nordisk is no different, with the pharmaceutical titan filing various patent and trademark infringement claims against counterfeit and generic versions of its products. The Ozempic Craze Ozempic was created and trademarked by Novo Nordisk to target Type II Diabetes in patients. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved this drug in 2017. It uses a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, also known as semaglutide, as its base ingredient, which aids in decreasing blood sugar levels. But it also had the side effect of acting as an appetite suppressant, resulting in patients undergoing weight loss. Consumers viewed this as a magical solution to solve their weight issues, leading to a spike in demand. This led Novo Nordisk to create Wegovy, another drug with the same base ingredient to specifically target weight loss. The FDA approved Wegovy in 2021 and subsequently, it was trademarked. Both the diet drugs received attention on social media platforms, with influencers touting the products to be the cause of their “glow ups” and “transformations”. Since the demand for the medication was exponentially growing, it incentivized other companies to create and market generic and counterfeit versions of the original drugs to capitalize on Novo Nordisk’s claim to fame. Litigation Against Copycats and Counterfeits There has been an influx of compounded semaglutide medications which are being peddled by pharma companies, med spas, wellness centres in order to cash in on Ozempic and Wegovy’s success. These often tout to provide customers with similar benefits of these drugs, but have not been specifically FDA approved. Such products not only have the effect of reducing the original company’s profits, but can also mislead consumers into investing their hard-earned money into unapproved medications, which could impair their health. Novo Nordisk has been fervently against the misuse of their trademarked products and have filed a large amount of trademark infringements and cease-and-desists against companies. One instance is of the company filing a claim of trademark infringement against Bella Rose LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The defendant med spa has been alleged to have used Ozempic and Wegovy’s marks in their marketing of compounded weight loss drugs. Novo Nordisk claimed that this amounted to Bella Rose misleading patients into thinking that the semaglutide used has been FDA approved or is equivalent to Novo Nordisk’s patented and FDA approved medicines. Novo Nordisk contended that the defendant’s action not only amounted to causing confusion amongst consumers as to the authenticity of the drug, but also put customers at potential risk as the compounded semaglutide had not undergone the testing process conducted by the FDA. The company asked for monetary compensation as well as corrective advertisement by Bella Rose LLC to dispel any misconceptions and reiterate that their product was separate from Ozempic and Wegovy. The pharmaceutical giant filed against LifeRxMD for trademark infringement and false advertisement. LifeRxMD sold compounded drugs that had similar semaglutide to that of Novo Nordisk’s products. While LifeRxMD’s website did have a disclaimer that their products were not associated with Novo Nordisk’s in any capacity, the latter claim pointed out instances where the company advertised their own products by saying that it had the base ingredient found in Wegovy, which could be seen as LifeRxMD misrepresenting their compounded drugs as the generic version of Novo Nordisk’s trademarked products. Novo Nordisk also filed against Dunklau Pharmacy Holdings LLC for allegedly engaging in misleading business practices by falsely marketing and selling misbranded medicines that claim to contain semaglutide without FDA approval. They contended that Dunklau Holdings was putting the health of patients at risk by selling adulterated products and that the selling of adulterated and misbranded drugs violated the Tennessee Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Novo Nordisk did not ask for monetary damages but instead prayed that the company be restrained from continuing such misrepresentation in order to protect the interest of both patients and Novo Nordisk. Conclusion It is clear that Novo Nordisk’s stance on the protection of their trademarked products is that of the offensive strategy, with them filing against any company or organisation that markets or sells drugs that claim to have semaglutide as its main ingredient. This shows that the company is keen on dispelling any confusion amongst consumers, so as to not have them mistakenly assume that the company has any association with generic or counterfeit versions of their patented medications. By utilising existing legal frameworks, Novo Nordisk has been keeping a check on the marketing and sale of alternative products, guaranteeing market demand and profits. Often when a product gains the market’s attention, counterfeit versions are produced with the aim of benefitting from its initial popularity. But Novo Nordisk’s history of litigation battles shows how companies can safeguard their intellectual property through relying on legal channels to ensure that their trademarks and patents are protected.

Luigi Mangione Emerging as New Fashion Influencer

January 1, 2025

Introduction It is rare for criminals to be apprehended within a reasonable time frame by the American police force. It is rarer still for the apprehended to skyrocket to fame as a fashion icon within mere weeks of his arrest. Luigi Mangione has recently emerged at the nexus of fashion, law and media, and has become a style inspiration for many. Following his arrest in connection with the murder of CEO Brian Thompson, Mangione’s appearance and outfit choices have captivated social media, transforming him into an unexpected fashion influencer. The Man, The Myth Luigi Mangione is a 26-year-old, Italian -American Ivy League graduate who was arrested on December 9th, 2024 as the primary suspect in the murder of insurance provider, UnitedHealthcare’s CEO Brian Thompson. The crime took place on December 4th, 2024, when Thompson was shot in the front of the New York Hilton Midtown hotel in Manhattan. Based on the surveillance footage taken from the crime scene, Mangione was apprehended quickly, upon being identified by a customer in a Pennylvanian McDonald’s. The public’s reaction to the death has been mixed, with some denouncing Mangione’s actions while others praised him for eliminating the CEO. Being one of the largest insurance providers in America, UnitedHealthcare is responsible for denying timely medical aid to thousands of people. This has caused outrage amongst citizens, furthering the ‘eat the rich’ mentality prevalent in the current cultural context. Many are skeptical of Mangione’s involvement in the crime, touting that he bears no resemblance with the partially revealed face of the hidden criminal from the surveillance footage. In the court of public opinion, Luigi Mangione remains undetermined of his guilt. But one thing has been decided for certain; the man has style. Luigi’s Personal Style Upon the CCTV footage being released, netizens were immediately enamoured by the outfit worn by the criminal. It was later determined that the jacket allegedly worn by Luigi during the shooting was the $225 Sherpa lined Two Pocket Hooded Trucker Jacket by Levi’s. The piece quickly gained popularity amidst the masses with retailer Macy’s reporting that nearly 700 jackets were sold within 48 hours. On December 19th, 2024, Mangione did a public ‘perp walk’, wherein he was escorted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a large group of people, including police officials and New York City Mayor, Eric Adams. During this way, Mangione was photographed wearing a fluorescent orange prison jumpsuit. Netizens swooned over the good-looking suspect, with one fashion watchdog account Diet Prada declaring that his outfit was “giving Saint Laurent”. By comparing his prison outfit to that of a legendary designer’s, the account gave Mangione a stamp of approval when it comes to style. It is interesting to note that an NYPD officer who accompanied Mangione also had his choice of shoe highlighted on social media, with netizens pointing out that the officer was wearing Off-White x Air Jordan 5’s, a coveted and fashion forward sneaker. Like most trends, the support for Mangione has also gone capitalist. Independent sellers have produced t-shirts, jackets, caps, tote bags and other daily items, all printed with sayings like “Free Luigi” and “CEO Hunter”. These items, while initially available on online marketplaces like Amazon, were quickly taken down for violating site guidelines. Interestingly, merchandise has also been created featuring images of Luigi from the beloved game Mario Kart, which gives rise to questions of protecting trademarks and intellectual property rights. Most recently, on December 23, 2024, Luigi Mangione made a court appearance wherein he pleaded not guilty to the murder of CEO Thompson. He was photographed wearing a burgundy sweater with a white collared shirt paired underneath it, gray slacks, and orange sneakers. Blending casual and formal elements seamlessly, Mangione showcased his easy going, prep style which is undoubtedly influenced by both his affluent upbringing and his Ivy League education. Trend analysts have previously coined burgundy to be the color of the Winter 2024 season, making Mangione right on trend. Conclusion Luigi Mangione’s unexpected rise as a fashion icon illustrates how the public’s perception of legal matters like crimes can determine how a criminal is treated. By championing him as a fashion icon, Mangione’s persona has taken on an aspect of romanticization. But it is important to exercise prudence in order to ensure that one does not pedestalize allegations of criminality simply based on the appearance of an accused.

No Longer So Chill: Trademarking a Meme

January 1, 2025

Introduction The recent copyright and trademark controversy surrounding the “Chill Guy” meme has sparked widespread discussions about intellectual property rights in the digital age. While the unauthorised usage of an artist’s work is certainly not a new issue in today’s internet landscape, the “Chill Guy” meme certainly proves an interesting case study on how artists can legally fight back against the blatant misuse of their artwork. Who is this “Chill Guy” The “Chill Guy” meme consists of a humanoid dog wearing a comfy-chic outfit of a grey sweater, blue jeans and red sneakers. Posing with a casual smirk on his face and hands in his pocket, the dog oozes nonchalance and emotional detachment.The artwork was created by Philip Banks in late 2023, and it gained popularity on social media platforms like Instagram and X (previously Twitter) in 2024. The artwork of the anthropomorphic dog was first posted on Banks’s Instagram on October 4th, 2023, with the caption “My new character. His whole deal is he’s a chill guy that lowkey doesn’t give a (expletive).” The mantra touted by the “Chill Guy” is to not take life so seriously, to view the glass half full. The artwork gained mainstream popularity in 2024, wherein it was used as a meme template, with the “Chill Guy” showcasing his “chill” outlook on various life circumstances, ranging from work stress to relationship drama. Thousands of reels and posts were uploaded online with humorous captions like “When she thinks you don’t care about her, but you’re just a chill guy who likes to be quiet”. The Capitalisation of the “Chill Guy” While most social media users utilised the “Chill Guy” meme in jest, this was not the case for large-scale corporations. Companies like Sprite Europe and sports organizations like the National Football League (NFL) have used the dog character in their promotional posts and marketing campaigns in order to leverage the meme’s virality and relatability. The “Chill Guy’s” simplicity and carefreeness makes him an every-man, a universalized symbol of the people. This allows any person or corporation to impose their brand onto the meme and use its popularity to advertise and thus, capitalize off of the art. The viral icon has also been featured in the cryptocurrency market through the Solana blockchain-based Chill Guy meme-coin. The value of the meme-coin has experienced exponential growth and reached peak market capitalization, since its debut on November 15th, 2024. Separating the Art from the Artist Philip Banks has denounced the usage of “Chill Guy” in furtherance of profit motivation. He took to X to announce that he had copyrighted the art and was issuing take-downs against those who used the art without permission. He further specified that while he did not mind the proliferation of brand accounts utilising the meme trend so long as due credit was awarded to him, he was staunchly against the unauthorised commercialisation of the same in the form of merchandise and cryptocurrency projects. Bank’s move to copyright his artwork is one in a long history of meme copyrighting. Legal Precedent in Meme Copyrighting The “Success Kid” Meme- The meme featuring a toddler clenching his fist in triumph was first posted in 2007, and it went on to become a widely used meme to symbolize personal accomplishments. In 2015, the child’s mother, Laney Griner, sought to trademark the image for merchandise sales to fund her son’s college education. Recently, in September 2024, Griner was successful in her trademark infringement suit against the campaign committee of former Iowa Congressman Steve King who utilised the meme for their marketing and fundraising campaign without permission. The Doge Meme – The Doge meme, featuring the Shiba Inu named Kabosu, was first posted by the owner, Atsuko Sato, in 2010. Its popularity spread in 2013, leading to the creation of an iconic meme template that has been used in various projects from brand marketing to cryptocurrency. While Sato owned the copyright to the original image, a decentralized autonomous organization called Own the Doge declared that they had availed the exclusive licensing rights to the Doge image after negotiating with the owner for approximately three years. Since the commercial usage of the Doge image is now overseen by the organization, the intellectual property is protected against exploitation. Conclusion Artists often struggle to retain ownership and control over their artwork once it has been posted on social media platforms, but Banks’s case shows that artists can rely on copyright laws to safeguard their intellectual property and stop it from being commercially exploited by large corporations. While some argue that copyrighting memes could lead to a stifling of the freedom of expression, others hold that it is important for artists to have rights over their own creations and that they cannot be separated from their art. This controversy highlights the need for better regulations and laws surrounding intellectual property rights as it pertains to digital creations which would strike a fine balance between respecting the audience’s interaction with the art whilst simultaneously upholding the artists’ integrity.