NEW YORK — Jimmy Choo filed a lawsuit in a Manhattan federal court against Brown Shoe Co., alleging that a shoe sold under Brown’s Franco Sarto label infringed on an existing copyright. The June 30 filing alleged that Brown Shoe sold its Franco Sarto Baro shoe through Nordstrom department stores. Jimmy Choo charged that the Baro shoe had an identical perforated leather design to one used on its own Frieda and Keisha products. Jimmy Choo asked for the allegedly infringing items and related materials to be confiscated and destroyed, as well as for damages. “We believe the complaint is without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously,” said Erin Conroy, a spokeswoman for Brown Shoe.

Soho Fashion Ltd. filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Manhattan against Forever 21 and Forever 21 Retail Inc. for alleged copyright infringement. According to court documents, Forever 21 marketed a graphic T-shirt that featured artwork that Soho alleged infringes on a piece of original art identified as Three Women. Soho asked the court to prohibit Forever 21 from reproducing or using the image in any way and that all allegedly offending garments be destroyed. Soho also asked for monetary damages, including $150,000 in statutory damages. Sources at Forever 21 could not be reached for comment by press time.

Louis Vuitton Malletier filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Boldrini Selleria in a Manhattan federal court on June 27. According to court documents, Louis Vuitton alleged that Boldrini infringed on its S-Lock trademark. The lock design trademark is featured on the brand’s bags, valises, handbags, briefcases, and briefcase-like portfolios, according to court documents. Louis Vuitton alleged that Boldrini consciously sold handbags with “spurious lock designs that are substantially indistinguishable from the Louis Vuitton S Trademark.” The lawsuit included claims of trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, false description of origin and unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, and deceptive trade practices. Louis Vuitton asked the court to permanently keep Boldrini from infringing on its trademarks and sought delivery of the allegedly infringing goods for destruction. Boldrini could not be reached for comment.

Chanel Inc. filed a lawsuit on June 27 against Starmaker Products Inc. in a Manhattan federal court asking for a declaratory judgment and trademark cancellation of Starmaker’s Micro Pearl Abrasion skin cream. According to Chanel’s lawsuit, Starmaker had filed its own lawsuit against Chanel on June 22, in which Starmaker asserted that Chanel’s Gommage Microperle, also an exfoliating product, infringes on its rights to use the Micro Pearl Abrasion trademark. Chanel alleged that Starmaker’s trademark is merely descriptive, and asked the court to declare that its line of Chanel Gommage Microperle Eclat products do not infringe on the defendant’s trademark rights. Chanel also asked the Manhattan federal court for a cancellation of trademark on grounds of descriptiveness and declaratory judgment of non-infringement. In addition, Chanel is seeking to prohibit Starmaker from asserting claims or maintaining actions against it. Starmaker Products did not return calls seeking comment.

This story first appeared in the July 18, 2006 issue of WWD. Subscribe Today.

load comments
blog comments powered by Disqus