NEW YORK — The Estée Lauder Cos. filed a complaint in Manhattan federal court against Designer Skin LLC and Acme Wholesale LLC, an affiliate of Designer Skin, for alleged trademark infringement of its Spellbound line. According to the complaint, the claims alleged by Estée Lauder include false designation of origin and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. The company asked the court to preliminarily and permanently restrain Designer Skin and Acme from selling products bearing a Spellbound trademark. Estée Lauder also asked for punitive and statutory damages as well as an accounting of profits. Estée Lauder declined to comment, citing a policy on pending litigation. Designer Skin did not return calls for comment by press time.

Tacori Enterprises filed a copyright and trade dress infringement lawsuit against Malidani Jewelry Corp. for infringing on its Crescent Silhouette Rings. Tacori asked the court for a preliminary injunction against Malidani and for judgment and damages. Malidani declined to comment.

David’s Bridal Inc. filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against International Bridal LLC and unnamed John Does for selling dresses online that infringe on its proprietary designs. According to the court documents, the allegations of the lawsuit include copyright infringement and unfair competition. David’s Bridal asked the court for judgment and damages against International Bridal. The lawsuit was filed in early April in Manhattan federal court. David’s Bridal was granted a temporary injunction against International Bridal on April 14. International Bridal declined to comment.

Beautiful Jewellers Private Ltd. filed a lawsuit for breach of contract against Tiffany & Co. in Manhattan federal court. According to the court documents, BJP is the exclusive distributor of Tiffany’s jewelry and products in India. BJP alleged in the complaint that Tiffany violated the indefinite, exclusive distribution agreement the two companies had. The lawsuit alleged that Tiffany ended the relationship because it entered into a distribution agreement with a competitor of BJP. The counts of the complaint include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, deceptive practices, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and accounting. BJP asked for $3 million in damages associated with each count, plus an additional $10 million in prejudgment and post-judgment interest for two of the claims. “We believe the complaint to be substantially inaccurate and will deal with the matter through our attorneys,” said Tiffany spokeswoman Linda Buckley.

This story first appeared in the May 1, 2006 issue of WWD. Subscribe Today.

A federal judge in the Central District of California found that Express infringed on a copyright held by Fetish for an embellished camisole. Express initially filed a motion for a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe on Fetish’s copyright, a procedure that is sometimes brought against someone who has threatened to sue. Express pulled its camisole from the market after Fetish warned the company of a potential infringement. The judgment request was filed in March after Express subsequently concluded that Fetish’s copyright was invalid. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson, however, granted a summary judgment to Fetish, saying it has a valid copyright and that Express’ long camisole and Fetish’s tunic are “virtually identical.” An Express spokesman declined to comment, citing a company policy on pending litigation. Fetish could not be reached for comment.