By  on February 6, 2007

NEW YORK — V.E.W. and VWK Licensing are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Vera Wang brands set to be sold exclusively at Kohl's do not infringe on another trademark. According to court documents filed in Manhattan federal court Jan. 25, the licensing companies asked the court to declare that the Very Vera and Simply Vera marks do not infringe on the "Vera" trademark owned by Atlanta-based The Vera Company. V.E.W. and VWK Licensing asked the court to declare its right to use its Vera Wang trademarks. The Vera Co. could not be reached for comment.
Parlux Fragrances filed a lawsuit against some of its competitors for a consent solicitation to install directors at the company that allegedly was misleading. The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 23 against Quality King Distributors, Model Reorg Inc., Glenn Nussdorf, Michael Katz, Joshua Angel, Anthoney D'Agostino, Neil Katz and Robert Mitzman. Quality King and its affiliates proposed to replace the current Parlux board with the named individual defendants, according to court papers. Parlux alleged that the proposal was a bid to seize control of Parlux's board and was illegal under federal antitrust laws. Nussdorf sent material to Parlux stockholders asking for approval to remove all the board members and replace them with himself and the other defendants on Jan. 18. Nussdorf did not return calls seeking comment.
A court-appointed special referee recommended $742,291 in damages for alleged contempt in a Supreme Court lawsuit filed by staffing agency 24 Seven Inc. and 24 Seven Online Inc. against The Gromwell Group Inc., Gromwell I.T. Inc., Gromwell Staffing Inc., Gromwell Temps Inc., Gromwell Information Technology LLC, Gromwell LLC and affiliated individuals. The case was referred to the referee by a New York Supreme Court judge to determine if the defendants had violated two temporary restraining orders and failed to provide documents to 24 Seven. "Gromwell regrets the conduct that led to this decision and has taken steps to address this matter," said David Bolton, the attorney for Gromwell. "With respect to damages, Gromwell respectfully disagrees with the referee's conclusions and is reviewing its options."
M.M.P. Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Forever 21 in Los Angeles federal court on Jan. 29. M.M.P., which does business as Fabrics & Fabrics, alleged that Forever 21 sold a woman's blouse and woman's dress that infringed on one of its fabric designs. M.M.P. alleged in its complaint that Forever 21 "intentionally copies fabric designs in furtherance of its business strategy of copying the latest fashions and selling them for inexpensive prices." M.M.P. asked the court to restrain Forever 21 from infringing on its copyrights and for unspecified damages. Forever 21 could not be reached for comment by press time.
Nicole Miller filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Rubber Ducky Productions Inc. in Manhattan federal court on Jan. 24. Nicole Miller alleged that Rubber Ducky manufactured and sold dresses bearing designs that infringed on its Africa and Tiki designs. The complaint also names stores that sold the allegedly infringing dresses. The complaint asked the court for an injunction and unspecified financial damages. Rubber Ducky could not be reached for comment.

load comments
blog comments powered by Disqus