'I'll Sue You!' - Lawsuits in the Fashion Industry

Discussion in 'In the News...' started by Benn98, May 10, 2019.

  1. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    BROOKE SHIELDS AND HER ICONIC EYEBROWS ARE SUING CHARLOTTE TILBURY

    written by Aria Darcella May 9, 2019


    Brooke Shields is known for her eyebrows, but that doesn’t mean she wants brands to name products in tribute to her facial features. At least not without her permission. According to The Fashion Law Shields is suing Charlotte Tilbury over an eyebrow pencil named the “Brooke S.” Additionally, the lawsuit, filed in California, names major retailers — including Nordstrom and Sephora — as defendants.

    [​IMG]
    A screenshot from Charlotte Tilbury’s website

    While the product doesn’t refer to Shields’ full name, her team believes her reputation is closely tied enough to eyebrows to create confusion. The lawsuit claims that her “bold eyebrows have been the trademark of her look and a target for endorsements and collaborations” since the beginning of her career. Shields says she has been “investigating and developing potential opportunities to create her own cosmetics line with an emphasis on eyebrow-enhancing products,” and that Tilbury’s product could “interfere” with her ability to market said products.

    Shields is asking the court to “force the defendants to cease their use of her name,” and stop all sales of products named “Brooke S.” She is also asking for unspecified monetary damages. At time of writing the product is still available on the Charlotte Tilbury website. For what it’s worth, Tilbury has named numerous products after famous women.


    Fashionweekdaily
     
  2. dsamg

    dsamg Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    5,703
    Likes Received:
    582
    I mean it sounds fair enough to me. We all know what Brooke S refers to.
     
    bonnevie, Benn98, kenndale and 2 others like this.
  3. kenndale

    kenndale Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2016
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    294
    I’m sure if you asked Brooke nicely or even sent over a big PR package she probably would have been ok with it.

    Give credit where it’s due, people.
     
    magsaddict, dsamg and Benn98 like this.
  4. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    Culture is such nowadays that sympathy instantly goes to the person being sued. Elsewhere and on Twitter, people are saying Brooke is reaching and just looking to make a quick buck, but I'm glad she's finally putting a stop to Charlotte Tilbury, whom I find mildly annoying. But my personal bias aside, Brooke's got a strong case.
     
  5. magsaddict

    magsaddict Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    285
    I think Brooke is absolutely within her right and valid to go after this. It's in poor taste for C. Tilbury to do so without any kind of permission, as kenndale points out, it's about giving credit. Brooke is by all accounts a perfectly reasonable and sensible person, so for Charlotte to come in and try and make a quick buck on her name is poor form. The fact it's a lawsuit means she's probably already sent Tilbury some kind of correspondence asking her to stop.
     
    dsamg likes this.
  6. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    [​IMG][​IMG]

    EX-VOGUE STAFFER WHO STOLE FROM GRACE CODDINGTON HAS BEEN SENTENCED

    written by Aria Darcella May 22, 2019

    Remember Yvonne Bannigan? She is the former Vogue employee and assistant to Grace Coddington who was accused of stealing from the editor last summer. Well according to the New York Post, Bannigan was sentenced to three years probation earlier today.

    One year ago, Bannigan was arrested and charged for allegedly racking up $53,564 in unauthorized purchases on Coddington’s credit card from February 2016 to when she was arrested. She was also accused of selling Coddington’s personal property on TheRealReal to the tune of $9,000. At the time, her attorney, Michael Cornacchia, insisted that she was innocent, saying there had been a misunderstanding. She even rejected a plea deal in July 2018.

    The Post says Bannigan eventually plead guilty to fourth-degree grand larceny charges for $32,209 in unauthorized charges on Coddington’s credit card.


    Fashionweekdaily/Daily Mail
     
    dsamg likes this.
  7. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    Flaunt Magazine Lawsuit by Former Assistant Dismissed

    The magazine reached an out-of-court settlement with a former assistant who alleged workplace abuse and harassment.
    By Kali Hays on October 16, 2019

    An incendiary lawsuit against Flaunt magazine and it’s principles is over.

    The Los Angeles-based fashion magazine is officially out from under allegations made earlier this year by a former assistant, Joseph Dalla Betta, who claimed to have been groped, slapped and verbally harassed in work settings by chief executive officer and comptroller Luis Barajas and editor in chief Matthew Bedard. Flaunt cross-sued Betta, and that case was dismissed as well.

    An attorney for Betta could not be reached for comment, but both of the lawsuits were dismissed at the end of September with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled or appealed in any way. Earlier court documents show the parties were in settlement talks and eventually came to an agreement to seek a full dismissal. Details of the settlement were not disclosed.

    Barajas confirmed the dismissal, but declined to comment on the settlement. He admitted that the lawsuit caused some issues for his publication, like a number of advertisers halting placements. But with the resolution of the lawsuit in place, he said major advertisers like LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton and Compagnie Financière Richemont “have already committed to returning.” The magazine, a quarterly print publication, has a 300-page fall issue coming out this week and a number of new advertisers came in despite the lawsuit, including Amazon Originals, McLaren, Gentle Monster and The Los Angeles Philharmonic, among others.

    Although Barajas denied Betta’s claims, when asked if the lawsuit led to any changes in Flaunt’s professional culture, Barajas was a little circumspect.

    “We have, in our 20 years of operating, witnessed shifts in not only workplace culture but the broader cultural landscape,” Barajas said, “and have responded accordingly with the integration of third-party course training and human resources, and will continue to do our best to create a culture of respect and inspiration for the many people who desire to work at Flaunt.”

    The dismissal of Betta’s lawsuit comes about two months after Long Nguyen, Flaunt’s founding style director, told WWD he was ending his work with the publication, in part, over Barajas’ handling of Betta’s lawsuit. Given the problems it caused, Nguyen said he urged Barajas and Bedard to step aside and launch an internal investigation — actions that other companies have taken when faced with accusations coming out of the continued culture of #MeToo. In the course of reporting, WWD also learned of additional alleged instances of inappropriate behavior by Barajas with his employees. Two former employees expressed that they’d experienced first hand or witnessed similar incidents to those alleged in Betta’s lawsuit. Neither employee ever filed a lawsuit.

    For Barajas’ part, he denied in full all of Betta’s claims and those reported by WWD, as well as additional claims by Nguyen regarding purported issues with Flaunt’s circulation and online traffic being used for advertising deals. Barajas accused Nguyen of being disgruntled and said in discussing the dismissal of Betta’s lawsuit that traffic to Flaunt’s web site today is up 400 percent compared to 2017. Revenue, led by online sales, partnerships and integrations, is up 12 percent, as well, he said.

    WWD
     
  8. Armani

    Armani Tech Support

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    Messages:
    27,096
    Likes Received:
    5,184
    https://pagesix.com/2019/11/26/fash...off-of-jennifer-lopezs-versace-grammys-dress/

    Fashion Nova sued over ‘knockoff’ of Jennifer Lopez’s Versace Grammys dress

    Jennifer Lopez‘s love may not cost a thing, but knocking off her most iconic red carpet look sure will.

    Versace is suing fast fashion retailer Fashion Nova over a copycat version of the iconic green jungle-print Versace gown J.Lo wore to the 2000 Grammys, along with several other looks based on the luxury label’s designs.

    In court documents filed on Monday, Versace called Fashion Nova a “serial infringer specializing in ‘fast-fashion’ knock-offs,” adding that the company, which launched online in 2013, “has been sued at least eight times by other designers (such as Adidas) for the same type of copyright and trademark infringement.”

    Fashion Nova’s version of Lopez’s unforgettable plunging dress, which it dubbed the “Love Don’t Cost a Thing” outfit, was released as part of the retailer’s Halloween collection. Priced at $69.99, it’s currently sold out in all sizes.

    The Versace original made headlines as recently as September, when Lopez closed the label’s spring runway show in Milan wearing an updated version of the gown.

    According to Versace, the eye-catching jungle print is a copyrighted design — as is its iconic black and gold “Barocco” graphic, which it claims Fashion Nova similarly copied for its own clothes.

    In its lawsuit, the fashion house said that it “objected to Fashion Nova’s infringing activities” on four separate occasions, beginning in July, before taking official legal action. It’s requesting an injunction blocking the brand from future knockoffs, and also asking Fashion Nova to turn over all profits from its copycat items.

    Representatives for Fashion Nova and Versace declined to comment.
     
  9. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    This lawsuit sounds perfectly legit, imo! Versace is well within their rights especially after warning that bottom-feeding Fashion Nova to knock it off (pun intended), and they ignored. Versace isn't suing for some outlandish amount either, but only for profits on the dress. Although, would 'profits' in this case include manufacturing/marketing/supply costs or just the raw profit they made on the dress?

    Can't believe the dress is sold out, are people really fine to be swathed in some raggedy, pale-coloured brothel curtain?
     
    Armani likes this.
  10. Your Anchor

    Your Anchor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2017
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    41
    ^ Just read about that on thefashionlaw.com
    So I tried searching "versace print," and yes fashion nova popped up with pages full of their versace knock off collection .
     
    Benn98 likes this.
  11. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    Mary-Kate, Ashley Olsen’s The Row Sued by Former Executive

    March 11, 2020 - By TFL

    Trouble is brewing at the notoriously private fashion brand of former child stars Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. Just over three months after their brand The Row parted ways with its president, the former executive has waged a legal battle against the famous twins and their critically acclaimed fashion label. A complaint filed in New York state court this month reveals that David Schulte has taken on Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, their brand The Row, and their entertainment LLC Dualstar, although, since the complaint was filed under seal, details about the case are scant as of now.

    What is known about the proceeding is that late last week, counsel for Schulte filed a request that the case be assigned to the commercial division of the court, a branch of the court system responsible for handling “complicated commercial cases.” In order for a case to be permitted to be handled in the commercial division in New York, the matter must meet the various jurisdictional requirements, including a monetary threshold, “which is generally applicable,” according to the court, and “is an amount in controversy of $ 500,000 or more (exclusive of punitive damages, interest, costs, disbursements, and counsel fees).” (There is an exception to this threshold if the remedies being sought are equitable or declaratory relief).

    As for what, exactly, Schulte’s claims against the sisters and their companies are, that is unknown until the documents are unsealed at a later date. However, the UCS 840 addendum that counsel for Schulte – Eric M. George, whose firm bills him as representing clients in “complex, frequently high-profile disputes” – filed last Friday lists “breach of contract or fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation, business tort (e.g. unfair competition), or statutory and/or common law violation where the breach or violation is alleged to arise out of business dealings,” as among some of the key the potential causes of action for a commercial division case.

    (Note: Complaints and other filings generally can be sealed upon a showing of a “compelling need” for secrecy that is sufficient to overcome the public’s interest in access. Such a “compelling need” may stem from the inclusion of trade secret information or some comparable interest in the documents).

    The filing of the case, itself, which was first reported by the Sun, comes shortly after Schulte reportedly resigned from his role as president of the nearly 15-year old The Row in late October 2019, a post he had held for three years, prior to which he served as CEO of eyewear brand Oliver Peoples.

    Not the award-winning brand’s first headline-making legal squabble, The Row was sued back in 2015 for allegedly enlisting and then failing to compensate one of its interns, who claimed that she worked 50-hour weeks for the high-end brand without pay or college credit three years prior. According to the proposed class action lawsuit, plaintiff Shahista Lalani alleged that Dualstar systematically misclassified entry level employees as minimum wage-exempt interns in violation of New York Labor Law. In lieu of pay, Dualstar also allegedly failed to provide Lalani and other similarly situated interns with work that furthered their skills or provided them any academic benefit, as required by both state and federal employment law in connection with unpaid internships.

    The case, which the brand called “meritless” and ultimately settled out of court (agreeing to pay approximately $140,000 to a class of 185 interns), coincided with a sweeping number of internship-specific lawsuits filed against fashion brands ranging from Burberry and Gucci to Calvin Klein and Marc Jacobs.

    The Fashion Law
     
  12. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    The gall. I find it incredible that they're so quick to sue for millions, yet just a few posts ago Versace went easy on them.
    But..... I didn't know artists get paid for rapping about brands! Nicki Minaj had a whole rap song about Chanel, does it mean she got paid as well? Yikes!

    Fashion Nova is Suing Tekashi69 for Allegedly Failing to Uphold His End of Instagram Deal

    March 19, 2020 - By TFL

    Fashion Nova was slated to get a new brand ambassador back in 2018. In exchange for an advance of $225,000, the fast fashion brand enlisted Daniel Hernandez – who is professionally known as 6ix9ine and Tekashi69 – to promote it on Instagram, and to mention its name in one of his music videos and in his song lyrics, but instead of carrying out his end of the bargain, the rapper and his people engaged in a “conspiracy to defraud Fashion Nova,” and pocketed the money before the rapper landed in jail two weeks later in connection with his alleged gang activity.

    According to the complaint that Fashion Nova filed in California Superior Court in Los Angeles this week, Hernandez and a handful of related defendants, such as MTA Booking, Inc., and Tr3way Entertainment, are on the hook for more than $2,225,000 in damages as a result of their “deceitful … conspiracy to defraud Fashion Nova,” which began when the defendants “sought out Fashion Nova” in October 2018 in order to secure a deal in which “Hernandez would provide marketing for Fashion Nova in exchange for an advance payment.”

    The defendants “sought out an agreement with Fashion Nova,” the California-based retailer claims, because of its“prestigious influence and presence on social media platforms across worldwide,” and thereafter, the parties engaged in discussions about working together “to bolster Fashion Nova’sand [Hernandez’s] reputations through joint posts on social media—i.e. Instagram.”

    Fashion Nova claims that on October 31, 2018, it entered into a “contractual relationship with multiple parties,” including MTA Booking, Try3way Entertainment, and Daniel Hernandez, among others, in furtherance of which Hernandez would provide marketing for Fashion Nova in exchange for an advance payment of $225,000.

    “Unbeknownst to Fashion Nova,” though, the defendants had already engaged in “premeditated discussions to conspire against [it] by inducing [it] to enter into a prepaid agreement advancing significant funds to [them],” Fashion Nova claims. So, while “Hernandez failed to provide any [of the agreed upon social media] posts [or placements in his music], he did manage to distribute the advanced payment amongst [his fellow] defendants before finding himself incarcerated only two weeks later.”

    Ultimately, Fashion Nova claims that neither Hernandez nor the other defendants ever “intended to perform their obligations set forth in the agreement” despite entering into it and accepting the advance payment,” and instead, engaged in “sly deceit and sharp tactics” aimed at defrauding the fashion company. As such, in November 2018, “upon learning that Hernandez was incarcerated in New York,” Fashion Nova says that it “began demanding return of the advance” payment, and continued to do so until December 19, 2019, when “Hernandez was sentenced to two years in jail after pleading guilty to serious felony crimes and testifying against a New York gang called Nine Trey Gang.”

    In the course of his criminal proceedings, including his “criminal court testimony,” Fashion Nova claims that it learned that the reality of the situation “completely contradicted the defendants’ representations … about Hernandez being a great marketing prospect and a qualified person for the services promised in the service agreement.”

    (It seems Fashion Nova’s team either failed to do its research before it enlisted Hernandez as an ambassador or it conveniently looked the other way – until now – in terms of the rapper’s well-documented past, some of which dates back to 2015 (three years before the parties’ agreement). On his rap sheet are cases initiated in multiple states charging him with choking a 16-year-old girl, assaulting a police officer, driving on a suspended license, posting a video online that depicted a 13-year-old girl engaged in a sex act (he pleaded guilty in 2015, and under the conditions of a plea deal, he agreed not to commit another offense for two years so that he could avoid registering as a sex offender), and violating multiple parts of his probation agreements all the while).

    Nonetheless, as a “direct and foreseeable result” of this and of the defendants’ conspiracy, Fashion Nova claims that it has been damaged in a sum “greater than or equal to $2,225,000,” and has suffered from “reputational detriment that is irreparable and that has already cost Fashion Nova millions of dollars.” With that in mind, the fast fashion brand has set forth 13 causes of action, including breach of contract, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, conversion, unfair business practices, negligence, and fraud, among others.

    As for Fashion Nova, the brand is currently embroiled in a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit with Versace, which filed suit against it in November for allegedly highjacking a number of its legally-protected prints.

    The Fashion Law
     
    dsamg likes this.
  13. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    Team Theallet!! :mohawk:It's hard enough for independent designers to get by without the likes of H&M stealing their work.



    H&M “Raced Sophie Theallet to the Market” With Copycat Wares, Per Lawsuit

    March 16, 2020 - By TFL

    A copyright infringement lawsuit pitting one of former First Lady Michelle Obama’s go-to designers against a fast fashion giant has landed on a New York federal court docket. In the complaint that she first filed in a federal court in Texas in June 2019 against H&M, Sophie Theallet claims that she created “a unique floral print fabric design and color scheme” in 2016, enlisted celebrities to promote it, and before she had a chance to formally launch the collection for sale to the public, H&M stole the print for garments of its own and beat her to market.

    According to Theallet’s suit, in February 2018, she learned from Marka Klonlari-Copycats, an Instagram account dedicated to calling out fashion copycats, that H&M had begun selling jumpsuits and tunics bearing a marigold and black floral print that is “a clear copy of both the textile and the overall look of [her own copyright-protected] print.” More than merely copying the print, itself, which she describes as a “floral print fabric design and color scheme (black floral print silhouette on yellow-gold fabric),” Theallet argues in her suit that H&M hijacked the overall “look and feel – e.g., flowing dresses and a loungey jumpsuit” – of her garments by way of its allegedly infringing wares.

    In addition to detailing the “substantial similarity” between her original design and H&M’s lookalike wares, Theallet points out how – exactly – H&M may have come upon her print, which is a critical element in the copyright infringement inquiry because as well as showing that the two parties’ designs are similar, in order to successfully make a case for infringement, it must be established that the defendant had “access” to the plaintiff’s original design.

    Here, Theallet, whose case was recently transferred from a federal court in Houston, Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claims that instances of access are widespread, as her brand enlisted a handful of celebrities to help promote the collection before it was offered up for sale. “For emerging designers, such as Ms. Theallet,” the designer asserts in her complaint, “it is understood in the fashion industry that dressing celebrities and social media “influencers” is the most effective form of marketing available.” So, in 2017, Theallet’s brand “took steps to promote the collection [of garments bearing the print at issue], including by providing sample garments to be worn by celebrity clients,” such as Gabrielle Union, Greta Gerwig, and Jane Fonda.

    Most famously, though, supermodel Kendall Jenner wore a jumpsuit bearing Theallet’s print during the Cannes Film Festival in May 2017. According to Theallet, Jenner posted a photo of herself in the jumpsuit – alongside “fellow supermodels Joan Smalls, Hailey Bieber and Bella Hadid” – on her heavily-followed Instagram account. Around the same time, Jenner posted another photo of herself in the jumpsuit on her Snapchat account, prompting “several blogs that follow the Kardashian-Jenner family’s sartorial choices” to pick up the image and run it on their own sites, “expressly identifying the jumpsuit as being part of [Sophie Theallet’s] collection.”

    Given that H&M follows Jenner on social media and has been closely tied to the 24-year old model and reality television star since enlisting her to act as “a spokesmodel for H&M and [serve as] the face of H&M’s collaborations with high-end design houses Balmain and Giambattista Valli,” there is a likelihood that the Swedish fast fashion giant had access to Jenner’s imagery – and thus, to Theallet’s print as a result, the designer asserts.


    [​IMG]
    Sophie Theallet’s print (left) & H&M’s print (right)
    With the foregoing in mind, Theallet claims that by “producing, distributing, advertising, and offering for sale … identical or nearly identical reproductions” of her print, H&M has engaged in “willful, intentional and malicious” copyright infringement, thereby, damaging her brand and “obtaining direct and indirect profits [it] otherwise would not have realized but for their infringement of [the print].”

    Aside from asserting copyright infringement claims, Theallet says that H&M is also on the hook for trade dress infringement since the trade dress at issue – namely, “flowing dresses and a loungey jumpsuit with each piece incorporating the unique [print] design and color scheme (black floral print silhouette on yellow-gold fabric)” – is “visually distinctive and unique and instantly serves to identify [Sophie Theallet] as the source of this fashion design.”

    According to Theallet’s complaint, as a result of her brand’s promotional activities, the print “has achieved widespread acceptance and recognition among the consuming public and the fashion industry in the United States and internationally,” which have come to “identify [the Theallet brand] or Ms. Theallet as the source of fashion garments featuring the [design].” In short: the “consuming public” links the design to a single source, which makes the “non-functional” and “visually distinctive” trade dress “entitled protection under both federal and common law.”

    Theallet argues that such similarities are likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of H&M’s printed garments, and that chance of confusion is heightened – and the “theft of [Theallet’s] intellectual property is [made] particularly egregious” – by the fact that H&M has a well-established pattern of partnering with high fashion brands. Given “the parallels to its authorized collaborations with established designers, such as Balmain and Giambattista Valli,” and in light of Jenner’s connection to both H&M and Theallet (by virtue of wearing her pantsuit at Cannes), Theallet claims that “when [H&M] rolled out its own confusingly similar pieces ahead of [Theallet’s] launch, a public eager to dress like Kendall Jenner could be forgiven for assuming that [Theallet’s] had collaborated with H&M on the copycat items.”

    “The crucial difference” here, per Theallet, is that unlike in the cases of Balmain and Giambattista Valli, for instance, “rather than collaborate with [Theallet] or legally license the intellectual property [at issue], H&M stole the designs and the publicity that went into them, racing [Theallet] to the market with its ‘fast fashion’ copies and siphoning the value of [Theallet’s] publicity and proprietary designs.”

    Theallet goes on to assert that H&M’s use of her trade dress without her authorization “furthers their willful, deliberate, and bad faith scheme to trade upon the extensive consumer goodwill and recognition [Theallet] has have established in the trade dress” at issue.

    The designer, who worked under late design great Azzedine Alaia before launching her eponymous label in early 2007, is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages, while H&M has since denied the bulk of Theallet’s claims and set forth 31 different defenses, including, that Theallet has allegedly engaged in “fraud or deception in the copyright registration process” and that “the purported copyright that [Theallet] asserts in this action is invalid, void, or unenforceable,” among other things.

    The Fashion Law
     
    dsamg and RedSmokeRise like this.
  14. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    Victoria Beckham firm sued by ex-employee over hand injury

    Simon Murphy
    @murphy_simon
    Published onTue 28 Apr 2020 15.00 BST

    Victoria Beckham’s clothing brand is being sued by a pattern cutter who claims to have developed a serious hand injury that required surgery after working for up to 15 hours a day in the run-up to New York fashion week.

    Kristina Kubiliene, 54, worked for Victoria Beckham Ltd at its London studio for nearly eight years and left last year after developing carpal tunnel syndrome, which left her barely able to open her handbag, her lawyer said.

    She underwent surgery last year which meant she could not do her job and she has been unable to work since, it is claimed.

    It is alleged that the condition – which causes tingling, numbness and pain in the hand and fingers – came on after Kubiliene handled heavy fabrics and equipment as she worked for up to 15 hours a day, seven days a week, in the run-up to fashion week. She did not have regular breaks or rest and had to take painkillers to get through shifts, her lawyer claims.

    It is alleged that Beckham’s firm “failed to put measures in place to look after Kristina and prevent this from happening”. The law firm Slater and Gordon is representing Kubiliene in a personal injury claim at the high court. The firm would not disclose the sum Kubiliene is seeking.

    Natasha Moyeed, an industrial disease lawyer at Slater and Gordon, said her client had “absolutely loved her job”.

    “She was a pattern cutter and very good at this job, but because she was good she was tasked with working for long periods and with heavy fabrics,” she said. “It was these repetitive, awkward and sustained movements which cause carpel tunnel syndrome to advance rapidly in hands and wrists.

    “When I last saw her she could barely open her handbag. She is unable to work and has had to undergo surgery to have any kind movement in her hands.”

    Moyeed added: “Normally she worked 10am to 6pm, but twice a year for two weeks she attended New York fashion week. For a month beforehand her workload increased to up to 15 hours a day, seven days a week, without regular breaks or rest. During these times her hands and wrists were so sore she needed painkillers to work. Victoria Beckham Limited failed to put measures in place to look after Kristina and prevent this from happening.”

    A spokeswoman for Victoria Beckham Ltd declined to comment.

    This month Beckham’s company faced a backlash after it emerged it had used taxpayers’ money to furlough 30 staff during the coronavirus lockdown despite its founder’s vast personal wealth.

    Though the brand boasts it has won critical acclaim since its launch in 2008, it has struggled to turn a profit. The company’s latest accounts filed at Companies House show it lost more than £12m in 2018.

    The Guardian
     
  15. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    PHILIPP PLEIN CHALLENGES FERRARI TO SETTLE LAWSUIT AND HE’LL DONATE MONEY TO CHARITY

    written by Eddie Roche June 5, 2020

    Controversial designer Philipp Plein has issued a highly unusual statement asking Ferrari S.p.A to settle the $200K they are asking for in a pending lawsuit and instead he’ll donate the money to the Gianna Floyd Fund, a GoFund me for George Floyd’s 6-year-old daughter, Gianna.

    Ferrari’s initial beef with the designer last summer was that he posted Ferrari cars on his Instagram and they threatened legal action. The Ferrari lawyers said, “Ferrari’s trademarks and model cars are associated in your pictures with a lifestyle totally inconsistent with Ferrari’s brand perception, in connection with performers making sexual innuendos and using Ferrari cars as props in a manner which is per se distasteful.”

    This didn’t go over well with Plein who wrote on Instagram: “The CEO of FERRARI Louis C. Camilleri should think twice before he let his lawyers send a letter like this to a valuable costumer who bought 4 brand new Ferrari’s in the last 10 years !!! I am still speechless about the unprofessional and aggressive behavior of the company FERRARI towards his clients ! This is a clear BLACKMAIL !!!! I will not remove the pictures and I will start legal action against the company Ferrari for this unprofessional behavior ! I expect an official APOLOGY from MR. Louis C. Camilleri!”

    Looks like that didn’t fly with Ferrari who pursued the suit.

    Today Plein released a statement:

    “Since over two years FERRARI SPA pursued a legal battle against me asking for a monetary compensation. Initially they requested 2 million EURO and now, after a strenuous negotiation, we went down to 200k EURO. The reason why they are asking me such compensation it’s because I posted a picture of my personal Ferrari on my private Instagram account. In this particular moment full of tragic events all over the world I feel completely inappropriate to fight over such irrelevant matters. Neither FERRARI SPA nor me REALLY need those money. Instead of continuing this useless litigation I asked my lawyer to settle the fight in order to make a contribution of 200.000 US dollars to the “Official Gianna Floyd fund” which is for the benefit of the daughter of the late George Floyd or to the Black Lives Matter Fund. I truly hope that FERRARI SPA will agree on this action towards a cause I have at heart since always. I am suggesting this solution to support the black community and not to promote myself or my brand. I’ve been the first designer who held a fashion show with an entirely black casting back in 2013 during Milan Fashion week and over the years I worked with the most important black talents such as 50 cent, Snoop Dog, Naomi, Tyga and many more. We must take actions immediately instead of wasting time and energy in such an absurd useless fight, I officially ask FERRARI SPA to come together to make a difference. Said this, even if FERRARI SPA won’t agree with my request, I will still make a personal donation in order to support such an important cause.”

    Today his lawyer, Carmine Rotondaro, released a letter to the public to Ferrari’s CEO requesting a proposed settlement. Part of the letter read: “It is the perception of Mr. Plein that, in these particularly tragic and divisive moments for our society continuing a legal battle over the pictures of some cars and clothes would be idle and tone deaf. He feels that instead of pursuing further appeals, Ferrari and Philipp Plein should better devote resources to supporting the communities which are most affected by the present dramatic social events.” The letter includes several other charities Plein could donate to besides the Gianna Floyd Fund with a $200K USD donation.

    Here is the letter:

    [​IMG]







    Plein came under fire during Milan Fashion Week in February when he concluded his show with a tribute to Kobe Bryant and the models wore bedazzled purple 24 jerseys with a set of a number of gold-coated vehicles, including two helicopters. The designer claims the helicopters were planned before Bryant’s death, but critics online argued the show’s tribute sensationalized Bryant’s death.

    We’ll update if Ferrari responds.

    Fashionweekdaily
     
  16. ediesedgwick

    ediesedgwick Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don’t know how many of these fashion houses are pushing their luck with the litigations. There are actual crimes going on. Fashion, as an art, is always inspired by someone or SOMETHING. If nothing else the cases generate publicity, I guess.
     
  17. Armani

    Armani Tech Support

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    Messages:
    27,096
    Likes Received:
    5,184
    44 Models are Suing Moda Operandi, Vogue for Allegedly Using Photos of Them Without Their Permission | The Fashion Law

    44 Models are Suing Moda Operandi, Vogue for Allegedly Using Photos of Them Without Their Permission

    September 8, 2020 - By TFL

    A group of nearly 50 models is suing Vogue’s parent company Conde Nast and fashion pre-sale site Moda Operandi for allegedly using images of them to sell high fashion garments and accessories without their permission. In a newly-filed complaint, dozens of well-known models –who have appeared in dozens of ad campaigns and worked with the likes of Chanel, Dior, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Prada, and Lanvin, as well as Nike, Zara, H&M, Revlon, and Victoria’s Secret – claim that both Moda Operandi and Vogue “broadly” used images of them despite knowing that their authorization was required.

    According to the 87-page complaint, which was filed in a New York federal court this month, 44 models represented by the model management company, Next Management, LLC – including Anok Yai, Abby Champion, Grace Elizabeth, Grace Hartzel, Lineisy Montero, Anna Cleveland, and Binx Walton, among others – allege that they are professional models “who are routinely hired by companies for their modeling services to sell products,” and are all “well known in and to (at least) the modeling industry, and [their] image, identity, and persona identity have been exposed and are known to the general public.”

    Despite being “sophisticated licensors and licensees of intellectual property and knowing that a model release is required to use a person’s name or image or likeness for trade, advertising or commercial purposes,” the plaintiffs claim that Moda Operandi and Vogue used their images on their respective websites for “trade, advertising, and commercial purposes.” The problem? At no time did either of the defendants “seek or obtain the prior written consent from any of the plaintiff(s) for the complained of uses of their images.”

    The models claim that Moda Operandi used images of them – from images and videos of them walking in runway shows to images of them backstage at runway shows – “to steer traffic to the modaoperandi.com website for its sole economic gain.” At the same time, they argue that Vogue used photos of them – including ones presumably taken by Vogue photographers (hence, the lack of copyright infringement claims) – on “the website vogue.com to market, promote, advertise and solicit sales of [high fashion] products by Moda Operandi.” For instance, Vogue “has published images of the plaintiffs in its runway galleries with a red pop-up icon of a shopping bag on the of the images and the text ‘SHOP THIS LOOK.’”

    Such unauthorized uses of their images and likeness, the plaintiffs argue, “are knowing and pervasive” and fly in the face of the fact that their “livelihood is based upon their respective image, persona, face and physical attributes and how such images may serve to promote or advertise the sale of products or services.”

    Such “knowing use and consciousness of liability under State & Federal Statutes” was demonstrated by Moda Operandi, the models argue, as the popular trunk show site “cropped, altered, and otherwise modified some of the [images of the] plaintiffs in an effort to avoid and circumvent the New York Civil Rights Law sections 50, 51 and The Lanham Act.” By “altering, mutilating, and radically changing such public images of the plaintiffs,” the models argue that Moda Operandi engaged “in a cynical effort to avoid liability under state and federal law … with full knowledge that it had not sought or obtained permission from any of the plaintiffs.”

    Against that background, the models claim that their counsel sent cease and desist letters to Conde Nast and Moda Operandi in April 2020, but despite communications from both of the defendants, including entering into “a confidentiality agreement so that Vogue could provide certain pre-suit disclosures on a confidential basis and for settlement purposes,” the parties have not reached settlements and the photos remain on both parties’ websites.

    The models set out claims of false designation of origin on the basis that “the general public is likely to be, and has been, deceived and/or confused into thinking that the plaintiffs have provided their respective sponsorship or approval to the services offered by Moda Operandi and Vogue,” and violations of New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51, which protect against the unauthorized use of another’s likeness for a commercial purpose. They are seeking compensatory and exemplary damages to be determined at trial, and a permanent injunction to bar the defendants from making such alleged unauthorized uses of their images going forward.

    Notably not on the list of causes of action set forth by the plaintiffs? Copyright infringement. Such allegations are likely not in play here in part because 1) the models are not the photographers of the images at issue and thus, do not have copyright rights in the images (regardless of the fact that they are the subjects of the photos); and 2) Moda Operandi and Vogue own or otherwise licensed the imagery from the copyright holders (i.e., the photographers and/or whoever the photographers assigned their rights to).

    With that in mind, the case is interesting in that the models are essentially asserting that it is not enough that the two defendants were legally permitted to use the images from a copyright perspective since they either licensed or were otherwise legally permitted to use the images, themselves (either because a Vogue-hired photographer took the images and/or Moda Operandi licensed the images from the copyright holder or received permission to use them). In accordance with the models’ assertions, Moda Operandi and Vogue should have gone a step beyond the copyright licensing and received their formal authorization to use their likenesses since the use at issue is commercial in nature.

    The lawsuit mirrors one that a group of Next-represented models filed against The RealReal in February 2017, arguing that the luxury resale site used their images and likenesses without the authorization to do so. To be exact, models, such as Anastasia Kolganova, Astrid Baarsma, Leona “Binx” Walton, Briley Jones, Crista Cober, Daniela Witt, Georgia Hilmer, Grace Hartzel, Hedvig Palm, Julie Fleming, and Lineisy Montero, claimed that San Francisco-based The RealReal – by way of the array of street style photos that it uses on its site and in its email marketing campaigns – is “trading on their image and likeness to market and promote the use of [The RealReal’s] services to sell products through [its] marketplace.” The parties ultimately settled that case out of court several months after it was filed.

    A rep for Moda Operandi told TFL that the company has no comment at this time. Conde Nast did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

     
  18. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    Yikes! This will turn out really messy and it may even impact who gets cast in shows as well, there will definitely be a lot of casualties. If the settlement is big then I doubt we'll see these models in Vogue again. Am I reading it correctly, these models are suing Vogue from their individual capacity and not via their agency Next?

    I don't get it though. If Vogue hires a photographer to roam backstage and snap away, with the tacit approval of designers/brands who are the tenant/owners of that property for the day/few hours, does it mean they have to get approval from every model they photograph?. I know in public you have no expectation of privacy meaning anyone can photograph you walking on a street and use your image in whichever way they like. I can see a lot of brands demanding that models sign waivers because they'd want to keep Vogue on side.

    Why won't Vogue just use editorial images or outtakes to sell goods anyway? Something so innocent and probably overlooked now resulted in a lawsuit.
     
    Bertrando3 likes this.
  19. MON

    MON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    11,951
    Likes Received:
    4,166
    Lol if I were the judge, I’d dismiss this outright. Hehehe. Legally speaking.
     
    Benn98 likes this.
  20. Benn98

    Benn98 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    41,386
    Likes Received:
    17,955
    LOL! Right? I don't think they'd win this case.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"