Along with the two consecutive award shows this week came two red carpets. Each carpet brought a lot of interesting fashion choices, from Katy Perry’s tribute to Britney Spears to Kim Kardashian’s backwards looking dress, both at Sunday night’s MTV Video Music Awards. The one dress that people could not stop talking about, though, was Lena Dunham’s Giambattista Valli gown worn to the Emmy Awards Monday night. Regardless of whether you loved or hated the dress worn by creator and star of the HBO series Girls, it seemed to bring up an issue of intellectual property.

On Monday night, designer Christian Siriano posted a throwback photo on Instagram of one of the designs from his Spring 2010 collection. The dress he chose to post had a strikingly similar color scheme and tiered tulle skirt to the dress Dunham wore that very night. Hm, coincidence? Probably not. Nice try Christian, but it wasn’t even #ThrowbackThursday.

As much as I hate when bigger designers copy smaller ones’ designs, I don’t think Siriano really has a case here. The only thing the two dresses have in common is the fact that they have tulle skirts. The colors and tiers are far too different for there to be any issue of copyright infringement. The bodices of each dress also give off two completely different aesthetics, as Valli’s offers a menswear-meets-formalwear vibe by matching a collared shirt with a ball gown skirt, while Siriano’s features a simple strapless design.

Even if Siriano did want to get into a legal battle with his fellow designer, there are no laws protecting him. It is perfectly legal to copy a garment’s pattern, which is hardly the issue here anyway. The only way Siriano would have a case is if there was an issue of print-copyrighting and both dresses lack any kind of screen-printing to begin with. Also, Siriano would probably never stand a chance in court against Valli, as the latter is a veteran couture designer and the former is a relatively new designer who got his start through Project Runway and designs for Payless Shoes.

Then again, Siriano definitely wasn’t the only one who thought the dress looked familiar…

Lena Dunham’s #Emmy dress looks kind of familiar. @josswhedon @JewelStaite pic.twitter.com/oEkU7N59nv

— refinery29 (@Refinery29) August 26, 2014

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Lena Dunham via Twitter]

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 The Votes Are In: Lena Dunham Wins Most Controversial Emmy Dress appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s talk toys. In the trade dress community, there appears to be some naughtiness afoot. Here’s the nitty-gritty on trade dress: it’s the law covering a product’s shape, color, design, texture, and even how it’s packaged and presented. If a competitor makes a product that is sufficiently similar to these attributes of another product so as to cause consumer confusion — BAM! Trade dress infringement.

Fuhu Inc., a company that specializes in child technology, is bringing suit against IdeaUSA for infringing on the trade dress of its tablets. The California-based company claims that IdeaUSA mimicked the “butterfly shape” of Fuhu’s “Nabi” tablet for their similar product, IdeaPlay. As further indication of the butterfly theme, Fuhu named their tablet Nabi because it means butterfly in Korean. So clearly, the butterfly-idea-shape-thing was taken, but did that stop IdeaUSA?

Due to licensing formalities, I can’t reproduce images of the two tablets, but click these two links for the visual –> the Nabi tablet and the IdeaPlay.  By utilizing soft edges and elongated corners, Fuhu created a product that contains the technology to which our generation’s children should be exposed, with their trademarked “Drop Safe” bumper to protect the tablet from realistic experiences. The design is brilliant. Easy to grasp. Resistant to shatter. However, this brilliance gave the infringing version equal shine because they are the SAME physical product.

Fuhu claims that consumers will likely be confused as to the source of IdeaPlay because of the very apparent similarities between the two products. Well, of course. YES. The IdeaPlay is nothing short of a knockoff. It isn’t difficult to grasp why IdeaUSA would want to copy (notwithstanding the fact that it’s illegal) the exact makeup of Fuhu’s kiddie tablet. The Nabi has nabbed more than $118 million in revenue, amounting to a glorious growth of 42,148% in just three years. (WHY DIDN’T I CREATE THIS?!) I say all of this to make the following point: to win a trade dress case, the makeup of your product needs to be distinct or well known by the public. The cute round edges of this children’s tablet are what make it work, and this design is clearly favored by consumers.

While the Nabi tablet ranges from $100 for the kindergarten version to $290 for the preteens-early-adolescents rendition, IdeaPlay is currently selling on Amazon for a solid $129. Welp. I know which gift would be bought in my household this Christmas season. And for a product that looks almost identical to its legitimate, though more pricey, counterpart? Why not? From an intellectual property standpoint, this is deliberate theft. Fuhu is rightfully seeking punitive damages here. IdeaUSA intentionally sought to capitalize off of the financial gain generated by the Nabi. Fuhu’s design was placed on the market first. The only visible difference between the two products is that the IdeaPlay has its camera placed on the boundary of the tablet, as opposed to being affixed to the touch screen like the Nabi.

This brings me back to the Victoria’s Secret case I covered a few weeks ago. There is the same blatant intellectual property theft occurring in both cases. Which brings me to my next question -why are businesses disregarding trademark law? Definitely a topic worthy of some coverage. It’s starting to seem as though the Lanham Act carries no weight, or at least not enough to deter competitors from swiping phrases and designs every week.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [LadyDragonflyCC – >;< via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trade Dress Naughtiness: Why Some of Santa’s Elves May Not Make ‘The List’ appeared first on Law Street.