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.

Happy New Year, everyone! While you’re getting back into your work routine, you might as well check out the best stories of last week from Law Street Media. ICYMI, check them out below:

#1 Navajo Nation to Continue Lawsuit Against Urban Outfitters

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. Read the full story here.

#2 Chi-Raq: Not Just Satire

On December 4, Spike Lee’s much debated new film “Chi-Raq” hit theaters. Some viewers approached the trailer and storyline with trepidation in the wake of its release, as the movie satirically approaches the issue of gun violence in Chicago. After an innocent seven-year-old girl dies in crossfire between the Spartans gang, led by rapper Chi-Raq (Nick Cannon), and rival Trojans gang, led by Cyclops (Wesley Snipes), Lysistrata (Teyonnah Paris), Chi-Raq’s girlfriend, leads a sex strike. The plot is loosely based off the ancient Greek comedy “Lysistrata,” by Aristophanes. Dolmedes (Samuel L. Jackson), the narrator of the film, alludes to such a connection in the opening scene. Read the full post here.

#3 Woman Gets Out of DWI Because of “Auto-Brewery Syndrome”

It sounds almost like a headline from The Onion or another source of satirical news: But it’s a true, a woman in New York got out of a DWI because her body produces its own alcohol, due to something called “auto-brewery syndrome.” Check out the full story here.

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week 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.

I recently wrote about how fashion ads are becoming less and less controversial. But now I think I know where all the controversy went in today’s retail strategy: it has shifted to the product itself. By now you may have heard about Urban Outfitters’ recent bloody Kent State sweatshirt. I’ve read a lot of opinions, including that of fellow Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney, claiming that Urban Outfitters intentionally released the controversial garment in order to increase its recently dwindling sales. I’m not so sure about that though.

Urban Outfitters’ highly offensive Kent State sweatshirt is up for sale on eBay for $2500 http://t.co/0YFxkIMGyr pic.twitter.com/RpTZrUQHUi

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 16, 2014

A few weeks ago, Spanish retailer Zara came under fire for producing a children’s top with a six-pointed star patch on the chest that bore a striking resemblance to the star of David patches that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Last I checked, Zara has been doing pretty well financially. Maybe it isn’t necessarily booming but sales don’t seem to be dwindling either. If anything, producing such a controversial item would hurt its profits and reputation, especially in the dominant European market where the Holocaust occured. It would be a poor choice on Zara’s part if it purposely released a controversial shirt in order to gain publicity.  

The owner of Zara has withdrawn this children’s shirt because of comparisons to the Holocaust. http://t.co/xbyJcuuulR pic.twitter.com/jQ0OKIxPnb — NBCWashington (@nbcwashington) August 28, 2014

While the situation with Urban Outfitters may be a little different, I also don’t think it’s fair to claim that garments go through so many people in production that it would be impossible for someone not to catch something that appears to be a little off. There’s a reason it’s called fast fashion. Unlike more specialized design houses, mass clothing retailers have to move quickly in order to meet consumer demands and make a profit. It’s not like there’s a group of people focused on each item for more than a few seconds at a time. Often the products are presented as a seasonal collection, so details on individual items may be overlooked.

As a writer and someone who works in the creative field, I know what it’s like to look at a project so much that you get sick of it, which may be the case for both the design and production teams in these companies. Also, when you’re working for a company, you look at the product with a completely different mindset than the hypercritical masses that are always looking for a reason to be angry about something. Even The New York Times gets busted for being lazy sometimes. I’m not necessarily condoning such laziness when it comes to editing, but I know for a fact that sometimes it just happens because people are human.

The offending sweatshirt was a one-of-kind vintage piece from Urban Outfitters’ Urban Renewal line, which consists of curated items that may be slightly altered or updated by the company. What seems to be the case with this sweatshirt is that the college apparel was tie-dyed by Urban’s design team in an unfortunate red color. The deep red dots appear to be parts where the dye was more saturated than the rest of the garment. Now if you’ve ever tried to tie-dye before you probably know that it can be pretty damn messy, not to mention difficult to make a consistent design. In this case they only had one item to work with, so if they messed up it was just seen as added character to the unique vintage gem.

While part of Urban’s reputation is to make quirky — and not always politically correct — products, I don’t think this was the case here. Sometimes the viewer reads way more into a piece of art than the artist ever intended. Also, producing a controversial product instead of an ad is a pretty risky business strategy, especially in Urban’s case where the sweatshirt was one of a kind. If anything, they would be at risk of losing even more money if people were to start a boycott of the brand altogether. While I wouldn’t excuse Urban Outfitters or Zara for having such a sloppy editing process, consumers need to calm down when it comes to judging a whole company for a mere oversight.

—

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 [Neff Conner via Flickr]

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 Cut Urban Outfitters Some Slack, Mistakes Happen 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.