Athleisure–active wear as wear-anywhere clothing–has hit peak trendiness. And producers of athletic clothes have been making big bucks as a result. But two of the leading athletic wear companies aren’t feeling particularly zen at the moment. Lululemon is suing Under Armour for patent and trademark infringements over the design of some of the brand’s sports bras.

Lululemon’s claim centers around the design of its Energy Bra (which retails for $52). The activewear producer claims that four of Under Armour’s sports bras violate its intellectual property. The Under Armour bras in question include the Armour Eclipse Low, the Armour  Shape Low, the UA On the Move Bra, and the UA Printed Strappy Bra. In the filing, Lululemon presents patents that include four overlapping straps in the back of the bras–it’s that particular design feature that’s at issue. According to the lawsuit, the design includes:

Four interwoven segments of fabric, two of which extend from each shoulder; the fabric segments extending from the left shoulder are attached to the right side of the fabric constituting the back of the bra; the fabric segments extending from the right shoulder are attached to the left side of the fabric constituting the back of the bra; the fabric constituting the back of the bra is bisected by a horizontal line

The fact that the company has patents on such designs at all is actually relatively rare–fashion usually moves too quickly and is too cyclical for manufacturers to bother with the patent process.

Still, if Canadian-based Lululemon truly believes Under Armour is cutting into its profits, the lawsuit makes sense. The sports bra industry accounted for $1 billion in sales last year. Lululemon wants an injunction to stop Under Armour from selling the bras, as well as damages. And Lululemon has had some success with such lawsuits before. In 2012, the company sued clothing producer Calvin Klein over a yoga pants design. While that case was eventually settled out of court, the fact that Lululemon was actually able to make progress with its lawsuit was somewhat of a gamechanger, given that clothing IP cases don’t normally make it that far. We’ll have to see if Lululemon actually gets Under Armour to pay up for the alleged strap-stealing as well.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lululemon and Under Armour Battle Over Bra Design appeared first on Law Street.

Two Chinese labor activists investigating a factory that produces shoes for Ivanka Trump’s brand have gone missing, and a third was recently arrested. The three men work for China Labor Watch and were looking into the alleged abuse of workers at the Huajian International shoe factory. The group is based in New York but focuses on workers’ rights in China.

According to the Associated Press, Hua Haifeng was arrested for illegal surveillance after working undercover at the factory since April. The group lost touch with the other two men, Li Zhao and Su Heng, over the weekend. The parent company of the particular factory, Huajian Group, produces between 10,000 and 20,000 shoes for Ivanka’s brand every year. It also makes shoes for brands like Coach and Nine West.

According to the director of China Labor Watch, Li Qiang, his employees found evidence that workers were forced to work overtime without pay, and that workers who left were fired. They also could be fired if they took sick leave, and were forced to sign false time sheets.

JUST IN: One arrested, two missing after investigating working conditions at Ivanka Trump shoe factory in China https://t.co/nB6f48k2eh pic.twitter.com/OzCQjJjIFF

— The Hill (@thehill) May 30, 2017

Chinese police claimed that the men had used illegal surveillance technology, but according to Li Qiang they just used their cellphones to shoot video. He said he thinks the police are protecting the factory since it is affiliated with the U.S. president’s daughter, considering he has investigated hundreds of Chinese factories before without any incident like this.

The wife of the man who was arrested said that she received a phone call from the police saying that Hua had been detained, and that she didn’t need to know anything more than that. “I understand and support my husband’s work,” she said. “I feel his work is legal and meaningful, so why should they arrest him?”

Li Qiang said that his company was planning on releasing a report on the factory next month. The Democratic National Committee responded to the news by releasing a statement calling for the White House to act on China’s human rights abuses:

We deeply hope that these detained or missing human rights workers are safe and can be reunited with their families as soon as possible. For years, Ivanka Trump has ignored public reports of awful labor conditions at a factory that makes her shoes. Now, she must decide whether she can ignore the Chinese government’s apparent attempt to silence an investigation into those worker abuses.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Activists Investigating Factory Used for Ivanka Trump’s Brand Are Missing appeared first on Law Street.

Melania Trump’s recent attire for a visit with Pope Francis has garnered a bit of controversy, as she joins her husband on his first foreign tour as president of the United States.

While visiting the Vatican Wednesday, both the first lady and first daughter Ivanka Trump adhered to the traditional dress code for a private papal audience at the Vatican.

Melania donned a mantilla, the lace veil traditionally worn in the Roman Catholic Church, and honored the nearby nation of Italy in a demure long-sleeved black dress by Italian fashion label Dolce & Gabanna. Ivanka dressed similarly, wearing a more voluminous sheer veil.

Pope Francis appears to have left a mark on Trump. “Thank you. I won’t forget what you said,” Trump tells the Pope https://t.co/VpBEp8XUPP pic.twitter.com/T796zQXLfH

— CNN (@CNN) May 24, 2017

“Per Vatican protocol, women who have an audience with the Pope are required to wear long sleeves, formal black clothing, and a veil to cover the head,” Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s communications director, told CNN.

But when asked why Melania wore a veil at the Vatican but eschewed a headscarf during her visit days earlier in Saudi Arabia, a conservative Muslim country where women are expected to wear head coverings, Grisham said there was no request or requirement for her attire from that country.

Melania isn’t the first first lady to forgo a headscarf in the Middle East, but her decision, however, directly contradicts her husband’s criticism of former first lady Michelle Obama, who chose not to wear one during her visit in 2015. President Donald Trump was quick to chastise the move at the time, tweeting:

Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2015

Obama also wore a black veil and a black dress when she met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican in 2009.

Despite foregoing the headscarf, Melania still received rave reviews from local Saudi Arabian press for her “classy” and “conservative” outfit.

According to CNN, Melania prepared extensively, with the help of State Department officials, on the proper protocol and customs for each of the stops on the foreign trip.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversy After Melania Trump Covers Hair at the Vatican, But Not in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Law Street.

Ivanka Trump is used to defending her family name in the court of public opinion, but soon she may find herself having to do it in a real courtroom. A California company is suing Ivanka, claiming her fashion line bearing her famous moniker has an unfair advantage.

The class action lawsuit filed by Modern Apparel Clothing (MAC), a San Francisco clothing and accessories company, alleges that Ivanka has gained unfair advantage “from Donald J. Trump being the President of the United States and from Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared, working for the President of the United States.”

MAC argues that the first daughter’s businesses received a boost in sales after President Trump blasted Nordstrom on Twitter in February, after it dropped Ivanka’s line from its store. Trump tweeted:

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

Political adviser Kellyanne Conway made matters worse the following day when she ended an interview with “Fox and Friends” by urging customers to “Go buy Ivanka’s stuff”–resulting in an ethics investigation.

The lawsuit claims that both instances resulted in “reaped unfair benefits and illegal profits at the expense of MAC and the Class it seeks to represent.”

According to data from Lyst, an e-commerce aggregator offering goods and tracking purchasing data from thousands of retailers, from January to February, Ivanka Trump sales increased 346 percent. If you compare her February 2017 sales to her average monthly orders in 2016, there was a 557 percent increase.

While Ivanka’s line has notably gained a boost in sales, its also suffered tremendous setbacks. Aside from Nordstrom, a string of other major retailers have dropped her line from their shelves due to declining sales, and the #GrabYourWallet boycott has led many people to avoid shopping at companies that support Trump family products.

MAC is seeking unspecified damages and a restraining order to preventing Ivanka’s line from being sold in California.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Ivanka Trump’s Name an Unfair Competitive Advantage? appeared first on Law Street.

Coachella and Urban Outfitters are locked in the ultimate hipster battle over trademark infringement. On Tuesday, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and its promoter Goldenvoice filed a lawsuit against the clothing retailer. The suit claims that Urban Outfitters has been selling clothes using the festival’s name and trademark design through its line Free People.

According to the lawsuit, at least four products have been marketed using the “Coachella Marks,” which amounts to unfair competition since they are “directly competitive with those offered by Coachella.” The suit described Urban Outfitters’ style philosophy as “bohemian, hipster, ironically humorous, kitschy, retro and vintage.” Many would say that this style is exactly how they think a music festival goer would dress. But that doesn’t mean Urban Outfitters is free to use a specific festival’s name for marketing purposes.

One example the lawsuit mentions is the so-called “Coachella Valley Tunic” which was described on Free People’s website as “the quintessential summer musical festival piece to throw on and go with.” That specific page has since been taken down. Urban Outfitters also allegedly had a whole line called Coachella Bella that was sold by several major retailers such as Macy’s and Amazon.

billboard: #Coachella festival sues Urban Outfitters for trademark infringement https://t.co/cpY6oyXlwi pic.twitter.com/RZ2H5LiQsB

— LiveShed (@LiveShedInc) March 17, 2017

And it doesn’t even end there–according to the suit, Urban has bought some keyword ads from Google, which means that if someone googles the word Coachella, products from Urban could pop up. Coachella has apparently made several demands, including a cease-and-desist letter, that Urban stop using its name, to no effect. The festival said it’s very selective with its licensing agreements and that it already has one with clothing giant H&M.

Coachella came under fire recently when it was revealed that owner Phil Anschutz has given a lot of money to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, compulsory unionism in workplaces, and global warming science. He has also sued the IRS several times to get out of having to pay taxes.

But Urban is not that innocent either. The company has been sued for using other names as well as designs without permission before. In 2012, it was sued for branding products “Navajo” without having anything to do with the actual Navajo Nation. That case wasn’t settled until November 2016.

Neither Coachella nor Urban Outfitters have offered any public comments about the lawsuit at this time.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coachella Sues Urban Outfitters For Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen settled a lawsuit from a group of former interns who allege they were never paid when they worked for the twins’ fashion company, The Row. The Olsens will pay out $140,000, and each of the 185 interns that filed the class-action suit will receive $530.

The group of interns first sued the Olsens in 2015, with some of them claiming they worked 50-hour weeks and carried out the same work as company employees for no compensation or college credit. One design intern said she was hospitalized for dehydration as a result of working too hard. The suit argued that they should have received minimum wage and overtime.

The Olsens–whose empire is worth about $300 million, according to Page Six–aren’t the only celebrities who have faced backlash from interns for owing them money. In July, instead of going to court, an intern who designed singer Aaron Carter’s website crashed the page when Carter failed to pay him $50,000.

In 2013, PBS’s Charlie Rose settled a lawsuit with a former intern who worked on his show, agreeing to pay about $110,000. In 2014, Lionsgate faced a lawsuit from a past unpaid intern at the “Wendy Williams Show.” First daughter Ivanka Trump does not pay interns at her company either, according to a blog post on Trump’s website written by an intern.

In 2014, Condé Nast–the media company behind magazines like The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, and Vogue–scrapped its internship program after getting hit with a lawsuit from two interns who said their pay amounted to less than $1 an hour.

In the debate over unpaid internships, critics have said that low-income students can be forced to miss out on the experience if they need paying jobs to handle all of their expenses. On the other hand, covering the cost of paid interns could mean that companies will have to limit the number of internship opportunities they offer.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen Settle Lawsuit from Unpaid Interns appeared first on Law Street.

Approximately 250 employees of Sterling Jewelers have testified about sexual harassment in the workplace. Sterling is the company that owns Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry.

According to the Washington Post, multiple women who worked for the company allege that their male bosses and managers groped them or pressured them to engage in unwanted sexual activities in exchange for raises and promotions. Others have reported gender-based pay and promotion discrimination.  

Since 2008, a class action suit against the company has expanded to include 69,000 women. But the attorneys representing the hundreds of men and women who testified received permission to release their clients’ statements on February 26.

The statements detail incidents that occurred in the late 1990s and 2000s. The women who are part of the “class”–or group of people suing the company–are seeking punitive damages and work compensation they say they never received.

Because Sterling makes its employees agree not to take employment lawsuits to public court, the case will go to arbitration court, which means it will be heard in private and the details of the proceedings could remain confidential.

A spokesman for Sterling told the Washington Post that the company had investigated the accusations and found that they were “not substantiated by the facts,” and added that there are “multiple processes in place to receive and investigate allegations of harassment or misconduct.”

However one of a handful of women who spoke to the Post said that a few days after reporting that a male manager had tried to kiss her, she was accused of stealing jewelry and money by one of her bosses and subsequently fired.

According to the Post, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wrote in a report last year that arbitration policies such as Sterling’s could “prevent employees from learning about similar concerns shared by others in their workplace.”

Sexual misconduct is an ongoing issue in work spaces. Two years ago, Cosmopolitan Magazine published a survey in which one in three women aged 18-34 reported being harassed at work. In June, the EEOC released a report which found that workplace harassment in general–whether on the basis of sex, race, orientation, or other factors–often goes unreported (the study also found that at least 25 percent of women experience harassment in the workplace).

Sterling isn’t the only company at the center of a high-profile sexual harassment case these days. Uber is currently facing widespread claims of mishandling harassment complaints from its female engineers.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds of Jewelry Store Chain Employees Testify About Workplace Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Sharing a last name with the president could make you unpopular in some circles, as Tiffany Trump learned while attending New York Fashion Week.

During the Philipp Plein show on Monday, the youngest Trump daughter was seen sitting by herself after fashion editors allegedly switched seats to avoid sitting next to her.

Former Wall Street Journal columnist Christina Binkley tweeted a photo of Trump from the show that she captioned: “Nobody wants to sit next to Tiffany Trump at Philipp Plein, so they moved and the seats by her are empty.”

Nobody wants to sit next to Tiffany Trump at Philipp Plein, so they moved and the seats by her are empty. pic.twitter.com/XcxNYI6Kf8

— Christina Binkley (@BinkleyOnStyle) February 14, 2017

Empty seats next to Tiffany Trump. pic.twitter.com/axvYJAFupl

— Christina Binkley (@BinkleyOnStyle) February 14, 2017

Nikki Ogunnaike, senior fashion editor at “Elle,” tweeted that the show started late due to the last-minute seat changes, with editors “fleeing” to not have to sit close to Tiffany.

The incident caused quite a stir online, with many people calling both Binkley and the fashion editors bullies for posting the photos and seemingly punishing Tiffany for her father’s actions. “The View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg was especially peeved by the snub, and defended Tiffany during Wednesday’s episode of her show.

“You know what, Tiffany? I’m supposed to go to a couple more shows. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’m coming to sit with you,” Goldberg said. “Because nobody’s talking politics. You’re looking at fashion! She doesn’t want to talk about her dad! She’s looking at the fashion!”

Goldberg’s co-host Sara Haines also chimed in saying, “it’s almost like we live in a time where people are saying that ‘because it’s a Trump’ it’s ok to bully her.”

.@WhoopiGoldberg reacts to editors not wanting to sit next to Tiffany Trump at fashion week: “Girl, I will sit next to you!” pic.twitter.com/FcNDqaw1Pn

— The View (@TheView) February 15, 2017

Tiffany accepted Goldberg’s invitation via Twitter.

Thank you @WhoopiGoldberg I’d love to sit with you too!

— Tiffany Ariana Trump (@TiffanyATrump) February 15, 2017

Three days after her original tweet, Binkley followed up to clarify that the seats surrounding Tiffany were only empty for about two minutes before other people sat down. Then the designer’s sister made those people move so she could sit there for the show.

“It’s easy to assume from a photograph that she sat there, humiliated, with empty seats by her, which wasn’t the case,” Binkley said.

However, online critics pointed out that if Binkley was upset that people thought she was a bully, maybe she shouldn’t have waited three days to clarify what happened.

The designer of the show also spoke out against the editors’ treatment of Tiffany, saying that a young girl shouldn’t be humiliated because her father has political opinions that people don’t like.

Hopefully the rest of NYFW goes much better for the first daughter.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tiffany Trump Shunned by Editors at New York Fashion Week appeared first on Law Street.

American model Karlie Kloss came under fire on Wednesday because of a photo shoot in the March issue of Vogue, which was dubbed the “diversity issue.” In the photos, Kloss appeared as an Asian woman in a Japanese-themed shoot. People on social media were swift to criticize her and the magazine, accusing them of cultural appropriation.

Hey, Vogue: Embracing diversity does not mean styling Karlie Kloss as a geisha https://t.co/GnW04ejz4v pic.twitter.com/LZSQzIF3eb

— The Cut (@TheCut) February 14, 2017

The photo shoot was reportedly a tribute to Richard Avedon’s famous shoot in 1966, in which he photographed German model Veruschka in Japan wearing exclusive furs. This time, photographer Mikael Jansson photographed Kloss in Japan, dressed in a traditional kimono and wearing a black wig. In one of the photos she poses next to a sumo wrestler. In another, she pumps water from an old-fashioned well.

Emma Stone, Scarlett Johansson, and Tilda Swinton turn to Karlie Kloss. “Your turn, girl.”

Karlie on phone: “Hello, Vogue? Make me Asian.” pic.twitter.com/zgUWIB022Q

— Ira Madison III (@ira) February 14, 2017

But, you would think that if the point of having a diversity issue is to show the diversity of women in fashion and in the world, maybe it would make more sense to cast an Asian model in this role.

This is why Vogue is cancelled. Their idea of “edgy” is hiring white people to imitate other races instead of just hiring diverse models. https://t.co/29lUkHfjLn

— The Glossier (@theglossier) February 14, 2017

But it seems like the people at Vogue didn’t think about that.

IDAF this was an homage to a 1966 Vogue shoot. Sure, take the visual inspiration—Don’t copy the dusty cultural insensitivty from 50 yrs ago https://t.co/gBOKbRugEq

— Chin Lu 呂錦華 (@ChinHuaLu) February 14, 2017

Kloss later apologized through her Twitter account, and Vogue removed the pictures from its website.

pic.twitter.com/Xem3dkaDZZ

— Karlie Kloss (@karliekloss) February 15, 2017

Cultural appropriation in fashion is a common phenomenon, and it’s not the first time Kloss has been involved in a controversy of this kind. In 2012 the blonde and blue-eyed model walked the runway at the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show wearing a Native American-inspired headdress and fringe. The company and Kloss faced backlash immediately. Native Appropriations, a website that is dedicated to countering stereotypes of Native American Indians, Alaskans, and Hawaiians, called out Victoria’s Secret for the costumes, and the company and Kloss both issued statements with apologies.

6.)
Karlie Kloss wearing a traditional Native American Headdress, representing November, for the ‘Calendar Girls’ segment at VSFS 2012 pic.twitter.com/WP3VdOb9XE

— daphne (@voguejupiter) December 6, 2016

There have been other recent incidents that garnered criticism for casting white women in Asian roles. In November, the movie “Doctor Strange” premiered with white, British actress Tilda Swinton in the role of a character that originally was meant to be an older, Tibetan man. The movie “Ghost in the Shell” was accused of whitewashing as Scarlett Johansson was cast as leading role in a remake of a classic manga movie. And in the summer of 2015, white actress Emma Stone played a character who is part-Asian in Cameron Crowe’s flick “Aloha.”

It’s probably high time for Hollywood and the fashion world to start thinking about how to increase actual diversity.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Karlie Kloss and Vogue Slammed for Cultural Appropriation in Photo Shoot appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no doubt that there are a lot of celebrities who are missing President Barack Obama: his effortless cool drew big names to the White House during his 8-year tenure. Now Chance the Rapper, the 23-year old hip-hop star, has taken his Obama appreciation to the next level, modeling for a new fashion line  named “Thank You Obama.”

I’m a model now. #ThankUObama droppin in like 15 minutes. ThankUObama.us pic.twitter.com/Y7jOHKzRam

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) February 2, 2017

The line, from Chicago designer Joe Freshgoods, includes hoodies and tees showing appreciation for the Obama family. In addition to “Thank You Obama” and “Thank You Michelle” clothing, the line also includes a “Malia” t-shirt that includes the message “We all smoke, it’s OK” (a reference to a video of the Obama daughter that sparked some controversy).

Freshgoods wrote about his motivation to start the line on the site:

With this project I wanted to timestamp a period in my life where I felt like I can do whatever I wanted to do and be whatever I wanted to be. The night Obama won his first term gave me so much hope, especially & most importantly as a black man. I decided to make a collection saying “thank you” and give me something to smile at every now and then when I look in the closet.

The ties between Chance and the former president run pretty deep: Chance’s father, Ken Williams-Bennett, served as Obama’s state director when he was a senator. And it appears Obama is a fan, as he cited Chance as one of the “top rappers in the game” in an interview last October. The fellow Chicago native was also tapped to perform at the White House Tree Lighting Ceremony this past December, and was an attendee at Obama’s goodbye party.

Look up Kensli, say cheese!

A photo posted by Chance The Rapper (@chancetherapper) on Dec 31, 2016 at 4:11pm PST

If you’re looking for a fashionable way to show off your gratitude to the former First Family, you can check out the line at thankuobama.us.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chance the Rapper Models a New Line of Obama Appreciation Gear appeared first on Law Street.

Someone call the fashion police!

A fashion label that created a custom outfit for Rihanna is involved in a legal battle against another brand after Kylie Jenner sported their similar design.

The company L’Impasse Couture, which designed the green fringe jumpsuit that Rihanna wore after the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards, sent a cease-and-desist letter to The Dolls House fashion boutique for allegedly replicating the jumpsuit in white.

Everyone's asking who wore it better?? We think Limpasse slayed Rihanna's Custom Made Green Fringe Jumpsuit!! Riri is a Slay Queen! Still a best seller link in bio @limpasseboutique #limpasseboutique#limpasse#rihanna#jumpsuit#fringe#bloggers#fashionbloggers#custom#sexy#design#designers#slayqueen#celeb#celrbrities#nyc#Paris#dubai#shop#shopping#fashion#kyliejenner#super#dress#woman#insta#instafashion#fashionista#abdulsall

A photo posted by LimpasseNYC® (@limpasseboutique) on Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36am PST

The dispute came to light when Jenner posted an Instagram photo of herself flaunting the jumpsuit earlier this week.

According to the letter, sent in September:

The Dolls House Fashion Ltd. has unlawfully represented a L’Impasse dress worn by  Rihanna by posting a photograph on Instagram claiming the design to be their own. L’Impasse has not granted [The Dolls House] the authority to commercially market their designs or given consent to make representations using L’Impasse’s trademark.

However, The Dolls House is maintaining that they came up with the design before L’Impasse did. In a statement to Refinery29, it said:

We are the original designers of the jumpsuit, which you can find proof of on our Instagram timeline, where we have posted images [of it] since February, 2016. We designed the jumpsuit in September, 2015, and we actually had fabric made a specific way for this style. We have invoices for this fabric dating back to September 2015. The Lanna Cami Fringe Jumpsuit was officially launched in February 2016, and was added to our website, available for customers to order.

Though Jenner herself isn’t involved in the case, she has been at the center of similar controversies before. In February, Jenner tried to trademark her own first name, and at the end of last month, she reportedly settled a deal with a makeup artist who accused her of plagiarism.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kylie Jenner’s Jumpsuit Could Lead to a Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Dressing the future First Lady of the United States is a privilege most fashion designers would kill for…but apparently Tom Ford isn’t most fashion designers. On a recent episode of “The View,” Ford revealed, “I was asked to dress her quite a few years ago, and I declined.”

“She’s not necessarily my image,” he explained.

Ford, who identifies as a Democrat and said he voted for Hillary Clinton, said he thinks the First Lady should wear clothes that the American people can relate to, claiming that “even had Hillary won, she shouldn’t be wearing my clothes. They’re too expensive.”

via GIPHY

However, one of the hosts was quick to remind the 55-year-old designer that he didn’t think his clothes were too expensive when he dressed First Lady Michelle Obama in 2011.

But apparently the occasion warranted an exception.

“She was going to Buckingham Palace for dinner with the queen and I thought that was appropriate,” he said. “I live in London so that makes sense. And it was an honor to dress her.”

After the show aired, Ford received some backlash on Twitter from users, while others applauded his stance.

trump supporters saying they’re gonna boycott Tom Ford, lmao first you gotta be able to afford Tom Ford

— namith (@namithvorakkara) December 1, 2016

But does it really matter if Ford dresses her or not? Not really. There are no rules that dictate what the First Lady wears or that she must be styled by designers. Thanks to the Trump family wealth, Melania will have her pick of luxury threads (sans Sophie Theallet) to don while her husband is in office–plus she’ll likely score plenty of freebies from her stepdaughter’s namesake line.

Ford appeared on the talk show to promote his new film “Nocturnal Animals,” a psychological thriller starring Amy Adams and Jake Gyllenhaal.

Watch Tom Ford discuss Melania, his new film, and more below:

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tom Ford Won’t be Dressing Melania Trump as First Lady appeared first on Law Street.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but makeup artist Vlada Haggerty doesn’t seem to think so. After allegedly stomaching months of idea theft, Haggerty says she’s ready to sue Kylie Jenner, claiming the “Keeping Up With The Kardashians” reality star copied her artwork to promote her holiday makeup line.

On November 19, the Kylie Cosmetics Twitter page posted an image of a woman with red ombre lips concealing her eyes with gold covered hands. The promo pic was meant to show off some of Jenner’s newest creme shadow and lip kit shades.

Yellow Gold CRÈME shadow on hands available in the holiday collection. Left to right: MARY JO, MERRY, VIXEN ombré on the lips @MarceloCantu pic.twitter.com/05jO4qEFIH

— KYLIE COSMETICS (@kyliecosmetics) November 19, 2016

However, the image drew a striking resemblance to one that Haggerty posted on September 24 captioned “See No Evil.” Haggerty, who goes by the username Vladmua on Instagram, called out Jenner and her company a week ago by posting a side-by-side of the two pics and captioning it:

Really @kyliecosmetics? Haven’t you gotten enough ‘inspiration’ from me already? Left is a the work @juliakuzmenko, @brittrafuson and I shot a few months ago and right is @kyliecosmetics new campaign.

Really @kyliecosmetics? Haven’t you gotten enough ‘inspiration’ from me already? Left is a the work @juliakuzmenko, @brittrafuson and I shot a few months ago and right is @kyliecosmetics new campaign.

A photo posted by Vlada Haggerty (@vladamua) on Nov 19, 2016 at 8:18pm PST

This is all part of a long controversy between the two that dates back to a year ago. Haggerty claims that not only has Kylie attempted to pass off her artwork as her own in the past, but the teenage entrepreneur also modeled her brand’s lip logo off  Haggerty’s signature melting lips.

Aside from the copycat claims, Jenner also faced backlash over defective lip gloss wands and overpricing, and was even accused of rebranding ColourPop’s matte liquid lipsticks formula as her own.

Photographer Julia Kuzmenko McKim, who captured Haggerty’s “See No Evil” image explained the concept of the photoshoot in a lengthy blog post. McKim wrote, “It breaks my heart to see how large brands take independent, unprotected artists’ work and use them to multiply their wealth. In an ideal world, big brands would easily prevent such backlashes by hiring the artists who have already created something that they would love for their own campaign.”

Kylie Cosmetics has not yet commented on the threat of legal action, but some experts say the lawsuit will likely be a dud. Since ideas aren’t legally protected, Jenner would need to have used the exact same image as Haggerty for there to be a real case.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kylie Jenner Threatened with Lawsuit Over Holiday Promo Pics appeared first on Law Street.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is banning ads that promote negative body image from London public transportation.

It all started with this Protein World ad asking if passengers were “beach body ready” last spring.

As a result, 378 people filed formal complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), leading the ASA to prohibit the ad from appearing again in the London underground system. Beyond that, more than 70,000 people signed a change.org petition demanding Protein World take it down.

@SnugglingonSofa I did this earlier today: pic.twitter.com/PDjiLiPXkJ

— Booky w/t Curly Hair (@NicoleBurstein) April 23, 2015

Khan announced the ban on Monday, and it will go into effect in July.

“As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said, according to a BBC report.

Research from the U.K.’s Government Equalities Office found that more than 50 percent of adults are ashamed of their appearance and one in five elementary school-aged girls has already gone on a diet in her lifetime.

Liam Preston, public affairs manager at the Be Real Campaign in the United Kingdom, said, “These negative influences out there…we don’t need them, and they will make people more anxious about how they look.”

Jessica Brown, 23, commutes in and out of London every day. Advertisements like Protein World’s poses a threat to people struggling with body image, she said, especially those who are working to overcome self harm or eating disorders.

“If you’re going to be on the tube for up to an hour, you don’t want to be looking at content that can be offensive,” Brown said. “It’s not going to help [people] on their path to recovery if they’re looking at this woman who’s been perfectly photoshopped.”

The ban will effect all transportation systems in London, including buses and the Tube. However, there is still much more that needs to be done in order to provoke global change on this issue.

“If the mayor understands it’s a big issue for Londoners…we’re hoping that the rest of the world is going to follow suit as well,” Preston said.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Mayor Wants to Keep Billboards from Body-Shaming Londoners appeared first on Law Street.

Gucci has announced it is leaving the International Anti-Counterfeit Coalition (IACC), making it the second brand to defect from the Washington D.C. based non-profit since the Alibaba Group became a member.

The IACC, which is devoted solely to combating product counterfeiting and piracy, accepted Alibaba into its organization in April as a general member. That same month, Michael Kors announced that it would be leaving the IACC because of Alibaba, calling the Chinese e-commerce giant “our most dangerous and damaging adversary.”

This bad blood stems from Alibaba’s controversial reputation for selling fakes and knockoffs of products from fellow IACC members including: Apple, Burberry, Adidas, Gucci, and Michael Kors, according to Quartz.

In a letter reviewed by the Wall Street Journal, Michael Kors’ general counsel Lee Sporn wrote,

Alibaba’s strategy has consistently been to provide lip service to supporting brand enforcement efforts, while doing as little as possible to impede the massive flow of counterfeit merchandise on its platforms.

Gucci has not released a statement explaining its decision to part ways with the IACC, but it is almost certainly a result of Alibaba’s joining.

The Kering Group, which owns Gucci and other luxury brands such as Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta, and Yves Saint Laurent, sued Alibaba last year alleging that the company knowingly and purposefully profited from the sales of Gucci knock offs on its e-commerce platforms. Alibaba dismissed the suit as “wasteful litigation.”

Even so, Alibaba’s founder Jack Ma has acknowledged the large presence of counterfeits on his marketplace. In an interview with “60 Minutes” he compared his company’s fight against fake goods to battling cancer.

“We are just a website operator. If you sell fake products on the site what can we do? We can’t arrest you. We can’t put you in prison. All we can do is close your shops, ” said Ma. He added, “We are the doctors helping to cure the cancer, but the cancer’s so aggressive. If you kill the doctor, the cancer is still there.”

Alibaba is said to have joined the IACC in hopes that the membership would allow it to enforce intellectual property rights more effectively.

The IACC has stood by its decision to invite Alibaba into the fold. IACC president Robert Barchiesi responded to the controversy in an email Saturday,

The IACC stands by its decision and is committed to lean into the future and lead a coalition of the willing. Whether it’s payment processors or online marketplaces, the choice is clear, they must be an integral part of the solution.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gucci Leaves U.S. Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition After Alibaba Joins appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Old Navy tweeted out an ad featuring an interracial family to promote its Thank You Event.

Oh, happy day! Our #ThankYouEvent is finally here. Take 30% off your entire purchase: https://t.co/nGQ9Pji1pN pic.twitter.com/vq4mIczm6A

— Old Navy Official (@OldNavy) April 29, 2016

The ad quickly drew fire from racist trolls who discussed plans to boycott the franchise while criticizing the company for promoting “miscegenation.”

Miscegenation, for those of you scratching your head, is an archaic term defined as the marriage and/or procreation of people considered to be of different racial types.

Many of the racist tweets have since been deleted, however, Jezebel managed to acquire several screenshots before they could be taken down.

The twitter user @RousetheMasses tweeted, “Absolutely disgusting. What’s next? Gender neutral bathrooms? Pedophilia acceptance propaganda?! Never shopping here again.”

She was joined by the user @CulturalCombat who wrote, ” I will never step into an @OldNavy store again. This miscegenation junk is rammed down our throats from every direction.”

The user @marylovefreedom also accused the ad of having a hand in “white genocide,” a theory that alleges immigration, integration, interracial marriages, low fertility rates and abortion in predominantly white countries is a conspiracy to deliberately cause white people to go extinct (even though she mistakingly tagged the post #WhiteGeocide.)

Clearly Old Navy’s message struck a nerve. The retailer, which typically receives likes and retweets in the 1-100 range, earned a huge boost in impressions after publishing the post.

Despite the hate, the overwhelming majority of responders supported Old Navy’s decision to portray a mixed race family in its ads. Several interracial couples and families began thanking the company by sharing photos of themselves and tagging the posts with the hashtag #LoveWins.

Hey @OldNavy, my family and I thank you for the diversity in this ad! #LoveWins, no matter the color pic.twitter.com/TjgYUPMGu4

— KHARY PENEBAKER (@kharyp) May 1, 2016

.@kharyp @OldNavy Thank You Old Navy! Interracial families are beautiful and we appreciate the representation! pic.twitter.com/kVNuGHfAB9

— Noelle Devoe (@Noelle_CD) May 2, 2016

.@OldNavy Props on this ad! My family and I appreciate it. #RepresentationMatters pic.twitter.com/ZXQ8YbT0QS

— Austin Null (@thenivenulls) May 2, 2016

Thank you @OldNavy for finally representing us #thankyouevent #oldnavy pic.twitter.com/x1d1TAifOY

— Chris Blackburn (@photoblackburn) May 2, 2016

Thank you @OldNavy for featuring interracial families in your ads! #oldnavy #LoveWins pic.twitter.com/o7oMQErZPp

— Stacey Valley (@staceyvalley) May 2, 2016

Hey Old Navy, love your new ad! I don’t shop there regularly but will definitely be going this week! #lovewins pic.twitter.com/iDohUc7pmy

— Deirdre (@deirdreshavon) May 2, 2016

It’s surprising that this particular ad would drum up so much conflict, since Old Navy notably has consistently featured a diverse cast of models in its marketing.

Old Navy doesn’t seemed phased by the controversy though. Spokeswoman Debbie Felix said Monday, “We are a brand with a proud history of championing diversity and inclusion. At Old Navy, everyone is welcome.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Old Navy Fends Off Racists After Store Features Interracial Family in Ad appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama gave his last State of the Union address ever last night, and hit on a lot (but not all) of the important issues the United States is facing right now. POTUS’s speech got plenty of accolades, and criticism, as is to be expected, but FLOTUS’s dress also made quite a splash. And while her dress was gorgeous, the statement she made wasn’t just about fashion:

Why was the internet freaking out over Michelle Obama’s dress last night? https://t.co/v9cnv5X53Apic.twitter.com/L6xyFcgNZx

— Glamour (@glamourmag) January 13, 2016

The internet had a bit of a hard time trying to figure out exactly what color the stunning frock was–some guessed marigold, others posited mustard, and a few others tried saffron. But no matter what color people thought it was, the fashion consensus was that it was a great look. In fact, it has already sold out on Neiman Marcus’s site, it cost a cool $2,095.

But Obama’s dress didn’t just make headlines because it was an excellent sartorial choice–the choice, whether it was intentional or unintentional, carried its own symbolism, for a few different reasons. For one, it was designed by Narciso Rodriguez, a well-known fashion designer who also happens to be the son of Cuban immigrants who fled to the United States, and openly gay. This isn’t the first time that Obama has worn one of Rodriguez’s creations–he also designed the dress she wore on election night in 2008. But, last year was heavy with talk of immigration and LGBTQ rights, so wearing Rodriguez’s dress may have been a subtle homage to the Obamas’ politics.

There was also another possible political angle to Obama’s choice. As a few users of Twitter pointed out, orange is the color of the anti-gun violence movement, and Obama sat next to the empty chair that was left unoccupied to represent the victims of gun violence.

Also the color of her dress is a symbol for The National Gun Violence Awareness campaign. https://t.co/Nsxnd4d8pf

— Angelica Stevens (@darkandtwisty90) January 13, 2016

#EmptySeat next to #FLOTUS for #gunviolence. Her orange dress is the color for @MomsDemand, I doubt it’s coincidence pic.twitter.com/F9kZMhydv7

— KathleenReddy Guidry (@kmreddy) January 13, 2016

Obviously, there were significantly more important things that happened last night than Obama’s dress choice. But, consciously or not, she made some statements, and showed that a dress has the potential to make a bigger statement than one just about fashion. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Obama’s SOTU Dress Was More Than Just a Fashion Statement appeared first on Law Street.

Urban Outfitters: it seems like every week or so the retailer is making headlines for pissing someone off. Whether it’s marketing a Kent State sweatshirt seemingly covered in blood spots, selling a shirt that proclaims “Eat Less,” or asking its employees to come in and work without pay, the brand is almost always under fire. But now it may have to pay for its controversial practices–the Navajo Nation is suing Urban Outfitters for marketing some products as “Navajo”–and a federal judge just agreed to let the suit move forward.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2012 in a U.S. District Court in New Mexico by the Navajo tribe. The tribe took issue with the products sold by Urban Outfitters that were labeled as “Navajo”–they included items such as clothing, jewelry, and accessories. Urban Outfitters used the Navajo name on products that the Navajo tribe argued were offensive–including a Navajo Print Fabric Wrapped Flask, despite the fact that the sale and consumption of alcohol are banned on the reservation located in Southwestern United States. The tribe also took issue with the “Navajo Hipster Panty.”

What, you don’t like Navajo patterned panties and booze flasks? Huh! “@ailsasachdev: Argh Urban Outfitters!!! pic.twitter.com/cpbhFQouti”

— Maria La Ganga (@marialaganga) September 16, 2014

It’s Navajo Nation v Urban Outfitters #IntellectualProperty #trademark via @TheFashionLaw pic.twitter.com/LRJjorhqPC http://t.co/gQYhJwDQp8

— Marksmen (@MarksmenTweets) October 6, 2015

While the products were removed from Urban Outfitters after the tribe sent a cease-and-desist letter, the tribe still decided to file suit. The tribe’s complaint accuses Urban Outfitters of alleged trademark violations, unfair competition, and violation of the arts and crafts act.

The act being referred to is the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1935. That act makes it illegal to sell products that imply or falsely suggest that they were made by American Indians when they were not. According to the Farmington Daily Times:

Under a 1990 amendment, tribes received the right to bring lawsuits against any person or entity who sells a product ‘in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product or the product of a particular Indian or Indian tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization.’

Additionally, the Navajo Nation has a number of trademarks that cover the use of the name “Navajo.”

However, Urban Outfitters fought back against the lawsuit, claiming that the tribe couldn’t show that any injury was done to it when the company used the name “Navajo.” However, it was based on that claim that U.S. District Judge Bruce D. Black just ruled that the tribe does have standing to move forward with its lawsuit. So, the lawsuit will continue, and Urban Outfitters is going to have to come up with another way to avoid paying a big penalty for its use of the Navajo Nation’s trademark and name. But, given its track record, I’m sure we’ll see Urban Outfitters in the news again soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Navajo Nation to Continue Lawsuit Against Urban Outfitters appeared first on Law Street.

Someone on Bloomingdale’s marketing team is probably banging their head against something hard right about now. Why? Well, the luxury department store made a colossal mistake in its recent catalog with a holiday ad that appears to suggest men should date rape their friends this holiday.

The ad, which promoted Rebecca Minkoff merchandise, depicted a well dressed man glaring at a woman who appears not to notice him, with the caption “spike your best friend’s eggnog when they’re not looking.”

Many Furious After Bloomingdale’s Ad Encourages Men To “Spike Your Best Friend’s Egg Nog” https://t.co/Cj70fjq6OH pic.twitter.com/qGErn3MhAC

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) November 11, 2015

It didn’t take long before people began bashing the franchise, saying the language of the ad condoned sexual assault and rape.

Fascinated that throughout the editing process, nobody suggested this Christmas ad is a bad idea #Bloomingdales pic.twitter.com/zUaNJnlK7y

— Lara DiamondPhillips (@Laradp) November 11, 2015

Here’s Bloomingdales advertising festive date rape and non-consensual drug abuse to sell fashion. Stay classy. pic.twitter.com/7KiPxmyB02 — Jack Monroe (@DrJackMonroe) November 11, 2015

In case it needs saying, DO NOT SPIKE YOUR BEST FRIEND’S EGGNOG. OR ANYONE’S EGGNOG. OR ANYONE’S DRINKS. EVER. #Bloomingdales

— Jack Monroe (@DrJackMonroe) November 11, 2015

C’mon everyone, ideas time: what do ppl love about Xmas? Oooh, chances for festively themed rape? #Bloomingdales pic.twitter.com/dwzLzO3wzJ — Addy (@adriana_lowe) November 11, 2015

#Bloomingdales says to spike a friend’s eggnog when they’re not looking. Horrific and offensive. Especially if it’s in a plain red cup.

— Brian Rush (@BrianRushNYC) November 11, 2015

After realizing its terribly dumb mistake, Bloomingdale’s quickly started apologizing, but some users demanded the company prove its remorse by showing support for rape prevention organizations. Unfortunately since the ad had already been printed and sent out, there is no formal retraction process to help stifle the backlash. 

@Bloomingdales if you’re genuinely sorry, donate profits to a rape crisis centre. — Vicki Lamb (@vix_lamb) November 11, 2015

Most likely Bloomingdale’s won’t go the extra mile by suddenly supporting sexual assault causes, but holding itself accountable is a good first step. It’s important to remember that these companies should be held to a very high standard, especially when the language they are advertising could possibly promote violence.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bloomingdale’s Holiday Ad Suggested Spiking Woman’s Eggnog appeared first on Law Street.

The Kardashians. Whether you love to hate them, or hate to love them, one thing is for sure–you just can’t stop talking about them. But if you’re tall, beautiful, and coincidentally a model walking in Kanye West’s New York Fashion Week (NYFW) show you might want to hold off on any K-clan gossiping you have planned, because it could end up being a $10 million mistake.

According to the Mirror, the 38-year-old rapper/designer/T-Swift interrupter required all models in his Yeezy Season 2 show to sign non-disclosure agreements effectively banning them from talking about him, Kim, or any other member of the Kardashian-West family.

Kanye isn’t playing games with Yeezy Season 2: http://t.co/ZHPrh9Aoxo pic.twitter.com/9LD3tRWzsg

— Complex Style (@ComplexStyle) September 16, 2015

According to one Mirror source,

Kanye’s hacked off some really high-profile models by asking them to sign the agreement, particularly because it stated that he could sue them for up to $10 million if they spoke out about him.

Some of the models flat out refused, saying they’d rather not be associated with him and his “media frenzy.” Others reluctantly signed.

This isn’t the first time West or the Kardashians have required their “people” to sign non-disclosure agreements. Take Kim and Kanye’s $12 million Italian wedding, for example. Not wanting to ruin their E! wedding special, all guests in attendance were obligated to sign confidentiality agreements and have their phones confiscated in order to keep their nuptials private and out of the media’s hands.

However, the models weren’t the only ones pissed at West over his NYFW antics–some of his fellow designers, specifically Anna Bowen, were too. Earlier that week Bowen blasted West, calling him “unethical” for forcing her to reschedule her show after he added his last minute to the packed runway schedule. West slated his buzzworthy presentation for the same time as Bowen’s, which pressured her into moving her show or risk no one showing up.

She told Women’s Wear Daily,

Kanye knows he is a media sensation and it is just not ethical to do this. It’s like we are David and he is Goliath. […]

We have put our heart and soul into our show, and should not be stepped on like this. Our show date has been scheduled for months and we have to move our date, which is a logistical nightmare.

So in other words Kanye effectively pissed off NYFW designers and models in one fell swoop. Who knows, the confidentiality agreements may just be a scare tactic. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was just one big tactfully planned publicity stunt by Ye’s camp aimed to bring more eyes to his last minute submission. Conspiracy theories aside, I will admit that it is slightly odd to see a family that has amassed so much of their wealth by living in the public eye try to retain anything private.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kanye Threatens to Sue Models if They Talk About Him or Kim During NYFW appeared first on Law Street.

Fashion trend website Refinery29 published an article recently with the headline “The Jeremy Scott Effect: How ‘Stealing’ Logos Can Technically Be Legal.” The second I came across it, I obviously began to develop a couple of opinions. Is it really technically legal? Are some logos really just up for grabs? I’m not so sure.

The Fall 2015 collection of Scott’s namesake line, presented in February at New York Fashion Week, is rather lacking in commercial logos. Rather, he saved the really fun stuff for Moschino where he sent Looney Toons-emblazoned sweatshirts down the runway at last week’s Milan show. Scott has also brought his own versions of classic American brands like McDonald’s and Barbie to the line.

In the case of the McDonald’s and Barbie capsule collections, Scott always alters logos to put his own spin on them. So technically he’s not stealing anything. Even Moschino’s version of the Barbie logo is distinctly different from any past or present logos. As a matter of fact, the collection was more of a collaboration as Scott even designed a doll for Mattel.

Refinery29 does go on to explain that designers need to get permission from a company to use its logo, as Opening Ceremony did with Kodak. But if anything, it’s not a matter of “stealing” logos, but rather clothing companies collaborating with other consumer brands. T-shirt company Junk Food, known for using images from brands like Coca-Cola as well as bands and tv shows, was one of the originators of this notion. Wherever they sell their products, there’s always a note crediting a company’s featured image.

While a lot of areas in fashion law are fuzzy, in this case it’s pretty clear; there’s no technical way to steal another company’s logo. It’s all a matter of strict licensing practices and creative collaborations.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why There’s Nothing Legal About “Stealing” Logos appeared first on Law Street.

Having worked in retail, I can tell you that shoplifters are a worker’s worst nightmare. Catching someone in the act can be difficult especially when most stores have policies that prohibit employees from approaching and accusing a suspected thief, out of concern for their employees’ safety. That can lead to lost merchandise and repeat offenders. But, now, a Utah based company has an alternative.

It gives shoplifters a choice–sign an admission of guilt and pay $320 for an online theft education course or the store will call the cops. But is that alternative inherently flawed?

Corrective Education Company (CEC) is a private loss prevention company that was started in 2010 by two Harvard business graduates looking to give shoplifters a second chance instead of a rap sheet. It’s starting to gain popularity with retailers because it doesn’t charge for the service, but instead operates solely on the funds generated from offenders. Retailers can collect a small cut of CEC’s $320 fee for every offender to whom they present the option to sign up for the program. According to CEC’s VP for account management, E.J. Caffaro in Slate Magazine, some big name retailers already using its services including Bloomingdale’s, Burlington Coat Factory, DSW, Whole Foods, and H&M.

What makes this company so concerning is its ability to completely bypass the judicial system for commercial gain. Susannah Karlsson, an attorney with the Brooklyn Defender Services described it perfectly to Slate saying:

There’s no judicial oversight, there are no constitutional protections, there’s no due process. It’s a private company acting as prosecutor, judge, jury, and collector.

Without any judicial oversight or due process, is CEC’s business model actually exploiting people? According to Caffaro, more than 90 percent of people who have been offered the course during CEC’s four years in business have elected to take it. That adds up to approximately 20,000 people, and I can see why. For someone who shoplifted and was caught, this program may be their best option: no jail time, no record, and maybe even a deterrent from future offenses.

What about the accused shoplifters who are innocent? When faced with the threatening possibility of dealing with the police, someone could easily be coerced out of fear into agreeing to this program despite being innocent. If that type of coercion is possible, then CEC could essentially go around accusing anyone it feels like of shoplifting, because the more people it accuses the greater the likelihood of people willing to fork over cash to avoid handcuffs. What’s even more concerning is CEC’s assumptions about the types of people entering its program. Caffaro told Slate:

These people that are getting apprehended typically haven’t been taught the life principles of how to build a resume, how to be presentable in an interview. They haven’t been given the skills to understand what a budget is, never mind how to manage their money. So as they’re going through the course, they build their own resume, they build their own budget, a work-out plan, an eating plan.

But the stores apprehending these people included Bloomingdale’s and DSW, both of which sell higher end products to more affluent customer demographics. To assume that these people can’t make a budget or build a resume is condescending and stereotypical. What exactly a workout and eating plan has to do with shoplifting is beyond me.

Businesses are within their right to settle these  cases sans legal assistance, but for the thousands of people being propositioned should be wary of a potential scam. My advice to anyone one accused of shoplifting by this company is to put away your wallet and call a lawyer.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shoplifters Given a Choice: Pay $320 or Deal With the Police appeared first on Law Street.

Now that awards season is officially in full swing, it means that red carpet season is upon us as well. And as we watch the red carpet coverage there seems to be only one question that reporters are interested in asking female attendees: Who are you wearing?

This year, The Representation Project launched a campaign promoting the hashtag #AskHerMore. The idea is for red carpet reporters to ask female actors and entertainers about anything other than their appearance.

The whole reason I write here on Law Street is because I am in fact a woman who is interested in business, politics, and law (and yes I do identify as the “F-word”). But I’m a little different from most of the other Law Street ladies (and men), because I work in the fashion industry as well. While many might argue that law and fashion are like apples and oranges, my career is focused around fighting against that notion. That said, can #AskHerMore and the fashion industry exist in solidarity? Absolutely, but allow me explain why.

The main reason most attend a red carpet event is that their work is nominated or because they are being celebrated in some shape or form that evening. While reporters may want to ask first-time nominees what it feels like to be recognized, they’re not going to ask someone like Meryl Streep the same questions for the umpteenth time. Asking what they’re wearing can serve as a sort of ice-breaker for any nominee. I’m not so sure, however, that “What are you wearing?” should be the only question women or men on the red carpet are asked.

Also, the fashion and entertainment industries are both based on artistic forms of expression. You can’t really have one without the other (Ahem, best costume design award?). But you also can’t have art without politics either. In fact, the reason behind a given celebrity wearing a certain designer is strictly business. These celebs have contracts with fashion houses that require them to wear designs that are meticulously picked out and designed for a given public appearance. In turn, these designers get calls from clients the second the celeb reveals to the reporter what he or she is wearing.

That’s not to say, however, that even celebrities aren’t fed up with being asked about their appearance. Last month during the Golden Globes, several celebrities chose to pass on partaking in E! News’s “mani-cam.”

While I don’t think there’s anything wrong with reporters asking celebs what they’re wearing, the idea behind #askhermore is that it shouldn’t be the only thing they’re asking. But what else are they supposed to ask in the few seconds that they have to interview them? I’m not sure. If it were up to me, I would just get rid of E! News’ red carpet coverage altogether. It all gets covered online anyway. That way we can focus on the actual show and honoring these women for their work, while still preserving the Old Hollywood tradition or seeing celebs all dolled up in their best evening wear.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #AskHerMore But What? Feminism, Fashion, and Awards Season appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Couture Week, my fellow fashion law-istas! On Tuesday while we were just dodging the Snowmageddon here in New York, Karl Lagerfeld threw a garden party in Paris for Chanel’s Spring ’15 Haute Couture show. Things haven’t been all sunshine and daisies, however, over at the Haus of Chanel as it filed a counterfeiting suit just last month.

Chanel is suing online e-tailer Shop Jeen not only for copying its goods but also its way of doing business. Shop Jeen produced imitation Chanel iPhone cases and allegedly marketed them in the same way as the couturier. According to The Fashion Law, Chanel claims that Shop Jeen’s actions have cost it irreparable damage and “the Defendants have been unjustly enriched.” Chanel is demanding $2 million “for each counterfeit trademark used and product sold,” in addition to attorney and investigative fees.

As you know, I’m all for designers defending their own intellectual property, but I’m not so sure about their ability to sue someone for stealing the way they do business. If a product is already a knockoff, wouldn’t it come with the territory that it is advertised in the same way as the original? If it were any other company but Chanel this might not really fly as two separate charges, but I’m sure the kaiser Karl Lagerfeld will be able to get away with it.

It’s cases like this that make fashion law so much trickier than most other intellectual property and trademark lawsuits. The only thing fashion attorneys have to go off of is prior cases. Then again, this is the Haus of Chanel we’re talking about here. Lots of clothing and accessories can be seen as inspired by or imitating the brand that basically defines classic. Yet as far as I can tell, it looks like Chanel’s got this lawsuit in the (2.55 chain strap) bag.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Chanel Sue For Stealing Its Style of Doing Business? appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, Saks Fifth Avenue took a page from the book of fellow upscale department store Barneys New York and attempted to justify its discriminative policies. But instead of partaking in racist actions against customers, Saks is discriminating against a transgender employee.

Former employee Leyth O. Jamal filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a Texas Saks, claiming she was fired for being transgender. So instead of owning up to its mistakes and offering an apology, Saks tried to find a loophole to justify its actions. The company claimed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include trans* people. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has concluded that Title VII could qualify for discrimination “based on sex” in the past. And if that’s not convincing enough for you, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department have also ruled that Title VII includes people of any trans* identity.

While these laws should definitely be properly amended to explicitly mention people on the trans* spectrum, that doesn’t get Saks off the hook. The company also insisted on using male pronouns to identify Jamal throughout its filings, even adding a “[sic]” every time it quoted Jamal referring to herself as female. Just as Leelah Alcorn’s parents continued to refer to her as male in their statements, referring to a person by anything other that the gender that he or she has chosen is ignorant and just plain disrespectful.

It is absolutely unacceptable for Saks to try to get away with such putrid behavior when the fashion industry is peppered with people who identify all across the LGBTQ spectrum. It shouldn’t be okay In any industry to mistreat trans* people, but it breaks my heart to hear that this is still happening in the progressive industry that I love. Both Saks and the government need to update their perspectives and become more inclusive of both trans* and LGBTQ people, so no one has to fall victim to discrimination, self-harm, and violence like Jamal, Alcorn, and Kimy Hartman all did.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saks Defends Discrimination Against Transgender Employee appeared first on Law Street.

You may have been following along with fellow Law Streeter Marisa Mostek’s Dumbest Laws series, as she goes state by state revealing the most random and outdated laws throughout the country. But this week, I want to tell you about a brand new dumb law that was proposed in Oklahoma this week, banning people from wearing hoodies. Anyone wearing a hood for the purposes of “hiding one’s identity” could be fined $500.

The Sooner State actually once held a similar law intending to stop the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1920s. Though this time I think the law may have more racist motives. With all the recent incidents of police brutality and subsequent protests, I can’t help but remember Trayvon Martin, who was killed by a police officer in 2012 while wearing a hoodie.

Barring dress codes for certain buildings and occasions, our First Amendment rights include freedom of expression and that includes one’s manner of dress. I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to be hit with a $500 fine just for wearing a jacket with a hood on a rainy or snowy day.

Senator Don Barrington insists that the reason behind such a law is to prevent people from getting away with crimes while concealing their identities. The law would also exempt those wearing a hood for religious, safety, or medical purposes as well as for Halloween costumes. So basically, the only day you can really get away with a crime is on Halloween. But how would law enforcement officers know if a person is wearing a hood for religious or medical reasons? Would they have to carry around special ID? Don’t police have anything better to do than to go around interrogating every single person wearing a hood in the state of Oklahoma?

So Oklahoma, get ready to say goodbye to one of your favorite closet staples. (Whether you’re allowed to wear hooded jackets as long as the hood is off of your head, I’m not sure.) If you don’t like being out in the cold/rain/snow with your head unprotected, I guess you could always wear a hat?

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dumb Laws Fashion Edition: Hide Your Hoodies appeared first on Law Street.

Last week I told you about the $22 million counterfeit operation busted in Queens. So now you might be asking yourself: If getting your “designer” handbags from Canal street is such a big no-no then where should I get my holiday gifts at a reasonable price? Never fear, it’s almost 2015 and there is now a plethora of consignment sites to get your second-hand designer goods. But as great as sites like Ebay, Amazon, and the new Alibaba are, sometimes sellers aren’t always honest when they claim their items are authentic. So to make sure that you don’t get duped (like my poor brother did when he ordered those fake Nikes from China) I’ve put together a handy guide on how to spot a fake. Whether you’re giving or getting one this season, here’s all you need to know about how to properly authenticate a designer handbag.

Chanel

Remember when I told you that I’ve had family members gift me fake bags in the past? When I was in high school, my aunt gave me a Chanel Grand Shopping Tote. I thought it was cool until I found some irregular stitching and a defect in the “leather.” However, there are a few other tell-tale signs aside from the obvious ones. When it comes to the flap bag, the quilting should properly line up when the bag is closed. The biggest giveaway can also be simply the leather itself; the lambskin should feel buttery smooth and not waxy. Also, every bag made after 1985 should have a label with a specific serial number inside.

Hermès

The most coveted bag in fashion history, people will do anything to get their hands on an Hermès Birkin bag. With a retail price of up to $150,000, the Birkin bag has a high resale rate, so it only follows that there are a lot of fakes floating around out there too. The easiest thing to look for is the bag’s lock spindle, as it should turn around smoothly, and should not be bumpy or grainy. The logo should also read Hermès-Paris with a dash, as opposed to an underscore. In the video below, Tammy Flehr-Gates from Michael’s consignment shop on the Upper East Side gives more tips on how to spot a fake Birkin.

Louis Vuitton

For any Vuitton bag, I reiterate the importance of checking that the leather is dry because if it’s waxy, sorry, but it’s probably not even leather to begin with. More specifically, the Neverfull’s strap should be exactly 3/8″ in width. Any larger is a sign that the bag is made of poor material, so it needs a thick strap to withstand any weight. Vuitton is also famous for its various collaborations, like with Japanese artist Takashi Murakami. The infamous multi-colored Speedy features exactly 33 colors, so any less and it’s cheap, lazy imitation. The cherry blossom Speedy also has a sneaky feature that an amateur counterfeiter would never know about; the inside should say “Made in Japan.” Although Vuitton bags are typically made in France, this particular collaboration was made in Japan. If it says “Made in France” on a cherry blossom Speedy, it probably wasn’t made there, or even in Japan for that matter.

Balenciaga

My personal favorite, the City Bag, is pretty easy to authenticate. Since it features so much metal hardware, the first thing you should check for is if they’re heavy and not hollow-feeling. The O-rings on all the zipper pulls will also be soldered closed. Rivets have two rectangular notches in them and the straps should be smooth with absolutely no bumps. Also you won’t ever find your average YKK zipper on a Balenciaga, as they only use Lampo zippers on their bags.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Holiday Gift Guide: How to Authenticate a Designer Handbag appeared first on Law Street.

As both a holiday shopper and retail-worker veteran, I’ve experienced Black Friday from inside and out. Despite the fact that I’m not really an active bargain-hunter (I prefer to be surprised by deals as I’m randomly browsing), it’s a tradition for me to visit my local mall every year, whether I’m working in a store or shopping myself. This year I’ll be running around the Banana Republic store at The Mall at Short Hills, one of the most sophisticated malls in the country (but trust me, even there people can behave a little primitively for a good deal, especially on Black Friday). So with the big day just a week away, I’d like to share some tips on surviving the holiday without running into any legal troubles. Happy shopping!

1. Don’t Trample and/or Kill Retail Workers

Remember back in 2008 when a Walmart employee died upon opening the doors for anxious shoppers? There have apparently been seven Black Friday-related deaths and 90 injuries since 2006. While Walmart should be held somewhat accountable, given the unfair ways it treats its employees, shoppers also need to calm down. I know heavy advertising and tempting deals can certainly feed into the hype and excitement of getting to be the first one in the store, but come on guys, you’re supposed to show gratitude on Thanksgiving. Don’t be so greedy.

2. Don’t Show Up Until Thanksgiving is Officially Over

With more and more stores opening on Thanksgiving Day to accommodate shoppers who choose to spend their holiday waiting in line instead of being with their families, retail workers end up missing out on spending the holiday with their families too. Lucky magazine compiled a list of its favorite stores that will not be open on Thanksgiving. Support them! I know being around family can be stressful, but some people actually like their families. So out of respect for retail workers, spend the day enjoying your family’s company at home–and then maybe peace out early saying you have to rest up for the next day. (Kidding! Okay, well, kind of.)

3. Please, For the Love of God, Try to Keep the Stores Neat

As a visual specialist, nothing angers me more than setting up a display only for a customer to dismantle it the second I turn around. You know what’s part of a sales associate’s job description? Finding the right size for customers. So when in doubt just ask, because it’s a lot easier for the person who folded the pile to begin with to pull a size, than for a customer who may already have their hands full of other items. That said…

4. …Please Be Patient with Sales Associates and Any Other Store/Mall Employees

Believe it or not we actually want to help you. It makes us happy and will make you happy. Trust me. Personally I am a very independent shopper. I don’t really like talking to people when I shop; I rarely even bring friends with me. But sometimes a manager or associate whose job it is to know all about the product may be able to offer something that you never would have known if you hadn’t given them your time of day. Did you know those shirts are non-iron? Those jeans come in three other washes. That dress would look great with these shoes. If you spend over $100 dollars today you get a free gift with purchase. I swear we’re not JUST trying to make a sale (most stores don’t even pay commission anymore), we just really like to help and offer our opinions, like we would for a friend.

But at the same time, try not to be too demanding of employees. Sometimes an associate, or even a manager may not know something about a product, because they are not the ones who produce the item. If you have any questions that store employees are not sure about, check out the store’s website or call its corporate headquarters. Customer service extends well beyond a company’s brick-and-morter locations.

5. Don’t Forget to Give!

Part of the reason I’ve loved working for Gap Inc. over the last three years is that they always give back. Every holiday season, stores “Adopt a Family” so employees can buy gifts for a family in need. And with around 100 employees per store, that’s a lot of potential to give. My store collects non-perishable foods from employees, as well. But there are still opportunities for customers to give too. Saks Fifth Avenue has had a partnership with St. Jude’s since 2006 and they host a lot of auctions and benefits, especially around the holidays. And of course there’s Macy’s famous Believe campaign with Make A Wish Foundation where for every letter to Santa put in their mailbox, they’ll donate one dollar. Also, don’t just ignore that Santa standing out in the cold collecting money for the Salvation Army. I usually just drop my change from Starbucks in there because it’s already in my hand anyway.

Have fun and happy holidays!

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Foolproof Black Friday Guide, Fashion Law Edition appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably gathered how important I think it is for a person of power to present themselves as far as their sartorial choices go; however, that doesn’t mean I don’t see the inherent double standard in society’s speculation over what women in power wear. From first ladies to political candidates, the public loves to ask a woman about what she wears and why she wears it. In fact, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself who once shot down an interviewer’s inquiry about what designers she likes to wear with the now-famous retort, “Would you ever ask a man that question?” Personally my answer would be yes, but I’m fully aware that I’m in the minority here.

The recently-opened exhibit at the Design Museum in London titled “Women Fashion Power” says a lot about how society tends to care more about how female politicians dress than it does about males. While sometimes there’s a correlation between a politician’s confidence and his appearance — a la Obama’s tan suit — clothes shouldn’t affect voters’ opinions on how well a person can lead, especially women.

While men may appear to have fewer options outside of the accepted black suit as formal and professional attire, tailoring is always key. If his jacket is too big, then the suit will end up wearing him as opposed to the other way around. People don’t want to vote for a walking suit, they want to vote for a powerful and trustworthy man — or woman.

“We want you to see firsthand that a solid education and the willingness to work hard is really at the core of what it’s going to take to achieve your goals: education and hard work.” —The First Lady to #FashionEdu Thank you to all the leaders in the fashion industry who encouraged the students at today’s Fashion Education Workshop to #ReachHigher in their education.

A photo posted by First Lady Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) on Oct 10, 2014 at 6:07pm PDT

Yet from Wendy Davis’ famous sneaker-and-skirt-suit ensemble to Hilary Clinton’s rainbow of pantsuits, voters love to refer to a woman of power by her clothing choices. First Ladies like Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy are constantly scrutinized, or lauded, for what they wear to every single appearance they make. The press couldn’t stop talking about the fact that Mrs. Obama finally wore American couturier Oscar de la Renta to her fashion education panel just days before the designer’s passing. The first lady has expressed her disinterest in fashion in the past, so why is she trying to fit into the fashion crowd now? Is this the only way for her to solidify her position of power? The exhibit in London even starts with fashions of ancient Egyptian leaders like queen Hatshepsut, but surely ancient male leaders dressed just as ornately. Yet we only ever talk about King Tut’s naked corpse.

Clothes definitely play an important role in any public figure’s reputation. But why does the public care so much more about what a “woman of power” wears than they do about the president’s and other male politicians’ clothes? All I know is that when I go to the ballot box next Tuesday, any women I happen to vote for will be because I trust in their ability to lead based on their policies and past actions. The fact that they dress cute is merely an added bonus.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Fashion Such an Important Issue for Women in Power? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Parisian fashion house Maison Martin Margiela announced that industry pariah John Galliano would take over as its new creative director. The former creative director of Dior has been attempting to make a comeback since he was caught on film going on an anti-Semitic rant back in 2011. Subsequently, Galliano was dismissed from his positions at both Dior and his own namesake line. But now that he’s back in the couture game, everyone can’t help but ask the age-old question: is it possible to separate art from the artist?

One of the most ubiquitous examples of a controversial man behind beautiful works is Woody Allen. There’s no arguing the classic status of Allen’s films but — especially recently when Dylan Farrow finally spoke out about her estranged father molesting her — people sometimes have trouble appreciating them knowing that a man with a weird fetish for underaged girls is the brain behind the masterpiece. That said, will the industry be able to forget, but maybe not necessarily forgive, Galliano’s transgressions come next couture season?

Galliano is hardly the only controversial figure in the industry. Fellow couturier Karl Lagerfeld is notorious for his sexist actions from his recent faux-feminist show to comments he’s made about women’s bodies like the singer Adele. But not everyone can get away with such aloof behavior. Activewear brand Lululemon’s CEO Chip Wilson resigned shortly after coming under fire for a comment he made about some women being too fat to properly fit into his leggings, and let’s not forget about American Apparel founder Dov Charney finally getting his just deserts for sexually harassing employees.

However, in the case of Galliano and Lagerfeld, as unacceptable as their behavior is they never physically hurt anyone like alleged sexual offenders Dov Charney and Woody Allen. So there aren’t necessarily any laws against such bigoted actions.

Ultimately, artistic minds like Galliano’s and Lagerfeld’s are very different from the average person’s in that they may not always be aware of the social ramifications of their actions. I’m not trying to excuse their behavior by any means. But whenever I hear Lagerfeld say ridiculous things about women I can’t help but roll my eyes and chuckle a little, because I know he has absolutely no perception of the real world. Galliano also allegedly blamed his abuse of alcoholism and drug abuse (which definitely fueled his inappropriate rants) on the pressures of running two couture houses. These artists tend to live in their own bubbles, only interacting with a select few people who let them get away with their odd behavior, because they are the genius masterminds who pay their paychecks. Quirky artists have the potential to offer so much joy in our lives, but sometimes you may have to look past their odd behavior and just appreciate their work for what it is.

Since getting the boot from the industry, Galliano has attempted to make his way back in. He tried a residency at Oscar de la Renta and a guest professorship at Parsons the New School for Design, but all have fallen through because the public was still not ready to forgive him. So is the industry ready for Galliano to return to the couture scene? Only time will tell.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Fashion Industry Ready to Forgive Anti-Semite John Galliano? appeared first on Law Street.

So this week in controversial t-shirt news, a market in the Philippines received a bit of backlash via Twitter over a top encouraging rape culture. Supermall, the major department store chain with several locations throughout the Philippines and China, promoted the offending item featuring the message “It’s not rape, it’s a snuggle with a struggle.”

In this case, I can’t really give Supermalls the benefit of the doubt. What’s even more bizarre about the product is that it was apparently featured in the little boys section of the store because you might as well get them to start disrespecting women as early as possible. There’s no way this could have been an oversight. Although I don’t know how aware Asian culture is regarding the topic of rape, the only excuse that I could begin to provide for Supermalls is that perhaps something got lost in translation. The word “rape” may not translate the same from Tagalog or Mandarin but I can’t see how “struggle” could mean anything other than something that implies difficulty, which is not a word that anyone would want to use to describe sexual encounters.

‘It’s not rape – it’s a snuggle with a struggle’: Store withdraws T-shirt after complaints http://t.co/jCnIn3jZt3 pic.twitter.com/gLMiAepsmI

— Daily Mirror (@DailyMirror) September 24, 2014

In response to all the Twitter backlash, Supermalls released the following statement:

Update on t-shirt statement. pic.twitter.com/cDTPamPC1e

— SM Supermalls (@smsupermalls) September 23, 2014

Why thank you, Supermalls as long as you’re sorry it makes it okay right?

What’s even more interesting is that Supermalls’ Twitter banner features a picture of a happy Filipino family with the statement “Everything’s Here for the Love of Lolo (Grandpa) and Lola (Grandma).” Because I’m sure wearing a shirt that promotes rape culture would make Lolo and Lola extremely proud.

Supermalls also apparently has its own foundation in which they “contribute to the welfare and well being of various communities,” according to its website.

While I’m not sure exactly how such a disturbing t-shirt came to be, the issue behind it only goes to further prove that many countries, including the United States, have a long way to go to erase the mindset of rape culture. The U.S. could learn from this incident in the Philippines and work toward spreading awareness about rape prevention while enacting laws that prevent such vile messages from being featured on advertisements and products.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial T-Shirt News: Store Sells Shirt Downplaying Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Urban Outfitters deserves an award for the ballsiest PR stunts of pretty much any clothing company. Forget American Apparel and its usually naked models; forget United Colors of Benetton and its Pope-kissing ads; the award goes to Urban Outfitters.

The reason Urban Outfitters takes the top spot here is because of its most recent transgression — yesterday a particularly tasteless item was discovered on its site. I’ll let this tweet sum it up:

Urban Outfitters are selling a “vintage” Kent State jumper, blood splatters and all. Nothing says “hip” like murder. pic.twitter.com/tq63ONAniq

— cory zanoni (@cjzanoni) September 15, 2014

That’s right, that’s a Kent State sweatshirt that clearly looks pretty blood stained. And what is Kent State most famous for? The May 4, 1970 shootings by members of the National Guard that left four students dead and the campus and nation devastated.

Of course, Urban Outfitters “pretended” to have an answer, releasing a statement that said:

Urban Outfitters sincerely apologizes for any offense our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused. It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such. The one-of-a-kind item was purchased as part of our sun-faded vintage collection. There is no blood on this shirt nor has this item been altered in any way. The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray. Again, we deeply regret that this item was perceived negatively and we have removed it immediately from our website to avoid further upset.

Sure, Urban Outfitters. I’m sure that literally no one involved in the production, marketing, or selling of the shirt noticed what every single person who saw a picture of it did — those red spots look remarkably like blood stains.

Listen, Urban Outfitters knows what it’s doing. If this were an isolated incident, maybe I’d give them a pass, but this is just the latest in a long string of PR stunts the company has used. Here are a couple times that the company charmingly attempted to glorify various disorders:

Dear @UrbanOutfitters, Depression and a girl with 2% body fat wearing an Eat Less shirt is not a fashion statement. pic.twitter.com/yEKurbhBwp

— nye (@fooddood_) January 18, 2014

Again, Urban Outfitters followed the exact same path. It received serious amounts of backlash over the shirts, came out with half-assed apologies, and moved on.

Remember that saying, “Any press is good press?” Urban Outfitters really seems to be taking that idea to heart. The more controversy you stir up, the more people talk about your brand. It’s pretty clear that that’s the philosophy that the company is attempting to use to sell clothes right now…but the real question is whether or not this tactic is working.

In 2012, Urban Outfitters hired a new CEO and purportedly tasked him with edging up the brand. There’s a fine line between edgy and offensive though, and Urban Outfitters has stepped way over that line. The fact that sales have been floundering while the other stores under its parent company have been growing, doesn’t bode well for the retailer.

Urban Outfitters has chosen to adopt the hot-mess Miley Cyrus strategy of marketing, and no one can give them any flak for not going all in with it. While this Kent State sweatshirt controversy is truly gross and horrible, I heard more people mention Urban Outfitters yesterday than I have in a very, very long time. That being said, whether or not it actually attracts new people to the brand remains to be seen — all press is not necessarily good press.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Urban Outfitters Forges Ahead With Offensive PR Strategy: Will it Pay Off? appeared first on Law Street.

As New York Fashion Week draws to a close and all of the celebrities, bloggers, and street style photographers clear from Lincoln Center, it appears that there is the same unsolved issue every season: where is the diversity on the runway?

Surely, we have seen quite a few additions of minority and even plus-size models since the earlier years of fashion week, but we still have a long way to go. And although the runways seem to be slowly but surely diversifying, there’s no excuse why particularly the one fashion week that takes place stateside is so slow to change. They may be able to get away with it in Europe, but there are plenty of African American girls for New York designers and agencies to chose from.

In the Fall/Winter ’14 shows last February, 78 percent of runway models were white, a slight decrease from the previous season’s 79 percent. Meanwhile, there are several famous supermodels who are minorities, like Brazilian Gisele Bundchen, Somali-born Iman, and Naomi Campbell who is black and British. So what gives? Why do designers insist on maintaining such whitewashed runways?

One possible reason is that, as with racism in most cases, it is simply easy for designers to fall into the same trap of maintaining the status quo of what ‘looks good.’ While the point of fashion shows is to display designs, that doesn’t necessarily mean that minority models can’t walk the runway without looking “too exotic” and detracting from the clothes they are wearing. Designers and casting directors need to start making a conscious effort to chose models of varying races. After all, if uniformity is still a concern, that is what hair and makeup are for. Remember last season when Kendall Jenner hid among the models at Marc Jacobs and no one even recognized her because her eyebrows were bleached?

Another reason for the lack of diversity on the runway could be that there are not a lot of minority models attending castings in the first place. If that is true, then the fault would lie with the modeling agencies as opposed to the designers. According to the Wilhelmina Models site, 13 out of 51 of the models signed with them appear to be women of color, about 25 percent. That’s an under-whelmingly low proportion of minority models. So why aren’t model scouts finding more women of color?

"Be happy, be yourself" love Diane #NYFW #DVFW pic.twitter.com/ua2PP5xIZc

— DVF (@DVF) September 7, 2014

The notion that only pale and blonde women can be beautiful is apparently still very ingrained in the fashion industry. Despite the fact that the number of white models is slowly decreasing each season, there is still a lot that needs to be done in order to erase this mentality. While I don’t think using affirmative action or establishing a certain quota for the number of white models allowed in one show would work, perhaps the CFDA could work to change this practice.

Several companies are already starting to promote the idea of using normal-sized girls as models, so why not start a campaign encouraging diversity? The president of the CFDA herself, Diane von Furstenberg, had about a third of her models as women of color in her show on Sunday, so I hardly think she would be opposed to promoting diversity in fashion. Von Furstenberg should use her power to eradicate the racist mindset in fashion and get more women of color on the runways.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Fashion Week Still Doesn’t Promote Diversity appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably heard about the unusual-colored suit President Obama wore to a press conference last week. Everyone seemed to have something to say about it. But as unflattering as the suit appeared, I think people are failing to see the real issue at hand, which the suit even helped to illustrate: our president has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the current issues at hand in foreign policy.

By wearing this particular tan suit, the president basically let the country know that he has simply given up. The suit washed out his complexion just like Russia and ISIS have washed him out, so to speak. When asked about his plans for Iraq, he merely replied, “We don’t have a strategy yet.”

Throughout his statement, despite being asked directly what his plans are, Obama seems to beat the bush giving vague answers about a plan that he has to make in the future. While it’s understandable that he doesn’t want to give out any information that’s not yet necessarily set in stone, foreign conflicts such as the ones at hand require crucial timing. If he waits too long to make a plan it may be too late, potentially costing a significant number of lives.

This is hardly the first time that the president has caused controversy with his sartorial choices. From his very first days in office, the public was up in arms over his decision to bare his shirt sleeves in the oval office. While he may have wanted to be the cool and casual president at the beginning of his presidency, the tan suit seemed to have gone a little too far. They say clothes make the man, and in this case the clothes made the man look defeated.

Granted, I would love to give the president props for straying away from the standard black suits politicians typically wear, after all it is the year 2014. However, there is a time and place for everything. A conference regarding the current state of war in Iraq and serious foreign threats our country faces from Russia is hardly the time to take a new fashion risk. Perhaps the president should’ve saved the khaki suit for a stroll in the Hamptons over the holiday weekend.

In the grand scope of things, it really doesn’t matter what the president is wearing, but rather the message he has to deliver to our country. The media’s reaction to his suit was certainly blown out of proportion, but I still think it is interesting how the suit’s color seemed to coincide with the overall tone of the president’s statement. There’s certainly no law dictating that the president must exclusively wear black suits, but if there were would the message have been received by the public in the same way? Obama has made several poor decisions throughout his presidency and that morning, his poor sense of judgement seemed to carry through to his wardrobe choices, as well.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Tan Suit Proves He Has Given Up appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, online retailer Modcloth became the first company to take the Heroes of Advertising Pledge “to do [its] best not to change the shape, size, proportion, color and/or remove/enhance the physical features, of the people in [its] ads in post-production.” If for some reason it does alter any images on its site, Modcloth must note that the image is not “real.” The pledge was created by the Brave Girls Alliance, an organization that also proposed the Truth in Advertising Act of 2014, asking Congress to regulate the use of Photoshop in advertising.

Modcloth is notorious for offering clothing for everyone, featuring many plus-size models on its site. The Hero of Advertising Pledge is a huge step in the right direction for fashion advertising. Not only will it help to prevent weird Photoshop fails, but it could also present a more realistic image to consumers, specifically young girls whose body images could be affected by them.

The media has always been the number one scapegoat for body image issues in children and adults alike. Underweight models in advertisements have set a standard for what the consumers think they must look like in order to wear the clothes sold in stores. Companies like Modcloth are trying to break the standard by using “real people” as models. Earlier this year American Eagle Outfitters’ lingerie store, Aerie released a campaign in which all images were completely un-retouched with the slogan “The real you is sexy.”

But exactly how effective are ads with “real” models at selling clothes? While some companies may get too Photoshop-happy, a published ad shouldn’t be sloppy or it could fail to properly grab the consumer’s attention. There haven’t been any studies yet on how “real” ads influence a store’s sales, although consumers do claim they want to see more relatable-looking people in clothing ads.

Perhaps advertisers should establish a medium when it comes to Photoshopping so that models don’t end up missing limbs, but also look presentable and appropriate for the company they represent. The Hero of Advertising Pledge does allow for some use of Photoshop when it comes to a flyaway hair or concealing a tattoo, but it can be tricky to establish a limit on how much is too much Photoshop and how much is too little.

An awkwardly Photoshopped ad by Ann Taylor LOFT. LOFT justified the alteration by claiming they were trying to conceal the model’s tattoo. Courtesy of Buzzfeed.

Advertisers can only do so much when it comes to influencing consumers’ body images. Eating disorders stem from various other factors such as genetics and trauma, but can be triggered by a suggestive ad. If ads that promote rape culture are censored, it makes sense to also limit ads that could affect someone suffering from an eating disorder in the same way they could affect a victim of sexual abuse. It is tricky, however, to determine what could actually trigger consumers with eating disorders as their perception of what is “normal” is skewed.

Model casting could also be an issue when striving to create “real” ads because companies may not want to waste time and money retouching a model’s image, which is why tall and thin models are usually cast in the first place. How do companies define what is too thin? Ultimately, it is up to the company to determine what kinds of bodies they want to represent their brand. But what is going to stop them from sticking with unhealthy or underweight models? Overweight models can also be just as triggering to people with eating disorders as thin ones.

While many fashion ads may seem misleading, such a notion is technically the point of advertising to begin with. Restaurants rarely use “real” images of the food they actually serve and the same idea can apply to clothing ads. The consumer is not going to look exactly like the model does in a garment because everyone’s body is different. Also, advertisements are meant to create a somewhat idealistic image in order to grab a consumer’s attention and successfully sell a product. Adult consumers, unlike children, usually have the common sense to tell what is real and what is not.

When it comes to using people in advertisements, however, it is difficult to determine what is ethical. Photoshopping a model into oblivion is no more effective than a sloppily unedited ad. Advertisers need to establish an appropriate medium for altering images, and while Congress can provide a guide as to how much is too much, it is ultimately up to the company to decide what kind of image it wants to present.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Congress Regulate What a “Real” Ad is? appeared first on Law Street.