A two-year legal battle between the world’s two most well-known Kylies seems to be settled…for now. In 2015, Kylie Jenner, who became famous thanks to the reality show “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” attempted to trademark her first name. She filed a request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) so that she could use it for advertising purposes in the U.S.

But Australian pop legend Kylie Minogue wouldn’t have it. Her team filed a notice of opposition in February 2016, claiming that Jenner trademarking their shared first name would damage the pop diva’s brand.  Minogue has sold perfume, make up, skincare products, jewelry, and other items under her own name. The opposition notice describes her as an “internationally renowned performing artist, humanitarian and breast cancer activist” who is widely known by her first name.

Kylie Minogue wins a legal battle against Kylie Jenner over the “Kylie” name trademark: https://t.co/RX0gIIlVs9 pic.twitter.com/0hJROzAGuq

— Entertainment Weekly (@EW) February 7, 2017

Even though most young Americans now associate “Kylie” with the Kardashian-Jenner clan’s youngest, Minogue has been a globally-known pop star since 1979. And her lawyers didn’t have very nice words for then-19-year-old Jenner when she filed the lawsuit: “Ms. Jenner is a secondary reality television personality,” whose “photographic exhibitionism and controversial posts have drawn criticism from, e.g., the Disability Rights and African-American communities,” the notice of opposition read.

Minogue already has very similar trademarks such as “Kylie Minogue Darling,” “Lucky–the Kylie Minogue musical” and “Kylie Minogue,” as well as her website kylie.com. The musical doesn’t exist yet, but she has plans to produce one some day. Shortly after filing the documents, Minogue tweeted:

Hello….. My name is KYLIE #lightyears

— kylie minogue (@kylieminogue) February 28, 2016

The case has been suspended at least twice in the past year due to settlement negotiations. On January 19, Minogue withdrew her opposition. Jenner’s application for the trademark may proceed, and the case was listed as “terminated” on January 26, so it’s possible that there was a quiet agreement reached.

In the midst of all this, Jenner released her cosmetic line “Kylie Cosmetics” last summer. She also lost a separate battle in which she aimed to trademark her full name in November 2015. She planned to use “KYLIE JENNER” to sell a very long list of clothing and accessories–“Belts; Bottoms; Coats; Dresses; Footwear; Gloves; Headbands”–and so on. But the USPTO denied the request, as the name is “confusingly similar” to other trademarks such as totally unrelated clothing brand “Kylee,” and Jenner’s brand with her sister, “Kendall and Kylie.” But Jenner filed an appeal on January 23, so the process is likely not over yet. Seems like Jenner’s lawyers have been pretty busy!

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 What Happened in the Kylie vs. Kylie Legal Battle? appeared first on Law Street.

A lot has happened in the world of fashion lawsuits and controversial apparel lately. So this week I thought I’d do a roundup of the brands that have come under fire, or even started the fire, over the past few weeks.

H&M Accused of Producing a Kurdish Jumpsuit

H&M have been inspired by the Kurdish female fighters. pic.twitter.com/3QzC7nQgsA

— Wasan Shoresh (@K4life_) October 5, 2014

Last week people seemed to get all up in a tizzy about a green khaki jumpsuit featured in H&M’s latest Fall campaign. Apparently the jumpsuit appeared to be a little too similar to the ones female Kurdish soldiers wear in the Middle East to defend against ISIS. But if you ask me, such a military-inspired jumpsuit has become pretty ubiquitous in almost any culture. H&M also released the jumpsuit in other colors besides the allegedly offensive green, as well as a denim version. In this case, I think consumers have once again read a little too much into the motive behind the garment. While we should definitely be aware of both the women and men fighting for their rights in the Middle East right now, in this case any similarities between H&M’s version of the jumpsuit and the ones Kurdish soldiers wear are merely coincidental.

Converse Sues to Protect Its Classic Shoe

The only thing more prevalent than the classic Chuck Taylor All Stars are the various knockoff versions of it and Converse has finally decided to put its foot down (pun unintended). Converse is accusing 31 companies, including Walmart, Kmart, and Skechers, of trademark infringement for copying elements like the black stripe along the sole and the rubber toe cap. On Tuesday the company filed 22 separate lawsuits in United States District Court in Brooklyn. As much as fake Chuck Taylors annoy me, I can’t help but wonder what took Converse so long to finally take action. Is it possibly too late? I guess we’ll have to just wait and see if they can stomp out their competition (okay, the pun was intended that time).

Bottega Veneta Trademarks a Knot (or at least is trying to)

Courtesy of Jerine Lay via Flickr.

This one is not really as crazy as the others, but I still thought it was interesting. Bottega Veneta is trying to trademark the metal knot it uses on its handbags, particularly as the clasp for its clutches. Apparently that’s easier said than done. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices (USPTO) rejected Bottega’s claim, saying that it was not distinctive enough. The designer then had to re-present its case citing the amount of sales they have made and how notorious they are for this particular “configuration” based on its ads. The company also compared its knot to the Chanel double C’s, the Tory Burch cross, and the Ferragamo bow.  Apparently that still wasn’t enough to convince USPTO, but the design house still won’t take no for answer and wants to reapply. As important as it is for designers to protect “trademark” elements, I hope that Bottega doesn’t get too tied up in this application process. (Okay that was the last one I swear!)

Chanel Sues Over Ghostbusters Sweatshirt

Parody T-shirt brand What About Yves has been creating a stir since releasing apparel with the message “Ain’t Laurent Without Yves,” regarding the haus’s name change to Saint Laurent Paris, a couple of years ago. For the most part the targeted designers let the streetwear brand be, but Chanel is not too happy about its use of the company’s logo. Just in time for Halloween, What About Yves released a Sweatshirt with the classic double C logo with the Ghostbusters ghost in between. I’m not sure if this is just supposed to be a festive clothing item, but if there is some kind of joke behind it I don’t get it. But yet again, why has Chanel decided to come after someone using its logo now? I’m not sure. Maybe they just decided that since the tacky clothier Jeanine Heller has finally targeted them that it’s their opportunity to take the designer-offending brand down. I know I sure wouldn’t mind if they did.

—

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.

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 This Week in Fashion Law: Kurdish Jumpsuits and Ghostbusters appeared first on Law Street.

I’d like to think my article from last week played a part in the important decision made today, but the true heroes are the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Congratulations, you get the Trevor seal of approval.

The USPTO canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name “Washington Redskins” today, saying that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law.

I’m actually dancing.

Lead attorney Jesse Witten of Drinker Biddle & Reath filed the case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on behalf of five Native Americans.  “We presented a wide variety of evidence including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur,” Witten said in a press release.

Federal trademark law does not allow trademarks that could be considered offensive or racist to groups, so the ruling has stripped the Redskins of six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “redskin.”

What does this mean for the Washington Redskins? They could potentially be forced to change the name of the team since they wouldn’t be able to make any money off of anything with the Redskins name or logo. But, Native Americans have been down this road before. In 1992 the Trial and Appeals Board rescinded the team’s trademark, only for it to be overturned in a federal court ruling after the team appealed.

The Redskins will still have rights to their name for the time being as they are expected to appeal the decision much like in 1992, but I have a strong feeling that this time it will be different and people will finally come to their senses and realize that the name is atrociously racist. So everybody please cross your fingers with me.

Daniel Snyder will fight tooth and nail to keep the name of his precious team, and I just learned today that the outspoken owner has a backup plan. Snyder had the name “Washington Warriors” trademarked more than ten years ago according to the Washington City Paper. This convinces me even more that he realizes the Redskins name is offensive, racist, derogatory, disrespectful, hurtful, obnoxious (I could go for days but I’ll stop with obnoxious), otherwise he wouldn’t need a backup name.

I guess I’m okay with Warriors

Native Americans won this battle but the war is not close to being over, it could be months and even years before we see the Redskins change their name and logo. But as a wise man named Trevor Smith once said, “we’ll fight and we’ll fight until we cant fight anymore, because our cause is just but our patience is poor!”

In all seriousness though, this was a great outcome for Native Americans around the country. The five plaintiffs should be extremely proud of their courage and determination as they could be the ones who finally get the organization to change its name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [RedSoxFan33 via DeviantArt]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dan Snyder is Definitely Pissed Off by Redskins Trademark Loss and I Love It appeared first on Law Street.