Legal challenges of product similarity in the fashion industry

Written by Dreyfus09/12/2024

The fashion industry, known for its dynamism and innovation, is also a sector where protecting trademarks and designs is essential. One of the major challenges brands face in this field is product similarity. The definition and interpretation of this similarity have a direct impact on the scope of legal protections, particularly for trademarks, patents, and designs. This article examines various aspects of product similarity in the fashion industry, based on recent jurisprudence and developments in the field.

What is product similarity?
The INPI vs. the Paris Court of Appeal: A jurisprudential divergence
The importance of similarity for fashion industry players
The rise of “dupes”: A threat to intellectual property
The need for jurisprudential clarification to ensure legal certainty

What is product similarity?

Product similarity refers to the evaluation of the degree of resemblance between two products or services, particularly in the context of trademark registration. This assessment is crucial as it determines whether a product or brand already exists on the market and whether another product could cause confusion among consumers.

In the fashion industry, this involves comparing not only the products themselves (clothing, accessories, perfumes) but also their uses, target audiences, and consumer perceptions. Competent authorities, such as the INPI (French Intellectual Property Office) or the Paris Court of Appeal, are responsible for resolving such disputes when a trademark is contested.

The criteria for similarity include:

Physical characteristics of the product: shape, color, material, etc.
Visual impression: how a consumer might perceive the products when observing them.
Purpose and use: products serving similar purposes may be deemed similar.
Target audience: for example, a luxury brand and an average ready-to-wear brand, while visually similar, may target different market segments and not cause confusion.

The INPI vs. the Paris Court of Appeal: A jurisprudential divergence

Differences in the interpretation of product similarity in the fashion industry have led to contradictory decisions. In some cases, the INPI considers perfumery, jewelry, and watchmaking products to be marginally similar to clothing. According to the INPI, similarity lies in the potential association between these products in the consumer’s mind, which could cause confusion regarding their origin.

However, the Paris Court of Appeal adopts a stricter stance, often relying on jurisprudence from the European Union’s General Court. The Court views the similarity between products as different as clothing and fashion accessories, such as jewelry or watches, as more limited due to clear differences in their use, design, and presentation.

These divergences create legal uncertainty for fashion industry players. Brands may face difficulties determining whether their protections cover all related products or if their trademarks might be challenged over similar but non-identical products. This raises broader questions about intellectual property protection, particularly regarding the scope and validity of registered trademarks.

The importance of similarity for fashion industry players

For fashion brands, legal protection depends on creating a strong and distinct identity. Industry players must be vigilant to avoid their products being perceived as copies of existing designs. This requires a differentiation strategy based on:

Innovative and unique designs
A clear brand image
Effective communication campaigns

Legal decisions on product similarity directly influence this strategy, as they determine how far a brand can go in launching new products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others.

The rise of “dupes”: A threat to intellectual property

The proliferation of “dupes,” imitations of high-end products offered at affordable prices, disrupts traditional notions of intellectual property protection. These products, widely popularized on social media, blur the line between legitimate inspiration and counterfeiting. While they do not claim to impersonate a brand, their visual or functional similarity can confuse consumers and diminish the perceived value of original products.

Legal challenges posed by dupes include exploiting grey areas in existing protections. Although designs effectively protect certain distinctive features, they often fail to counter such imitations. Shape trademarks and copyright laws, while helpful, involve complex and often lengthy legal proceedings.

The rise of dupe culture reflects admiration for luxury products and a desire to democratize style. However, it also poses an economic risk to established brands. By flooding the market with low-cost products, dupes undermine the exclusivity and innovation that define luxury brands.

In a context where consumers increasingly gravitate toward these alternatives, brands must double down on differentiation efforts through both designs and communication. Explicit recognition of intellectual property rights, combined with a proactive strategy against dupes, is crucial for maintaining their market position.

The need for jurisprudential clarification to ensure legal certainty

Disputes over product similarity are common in the fashion industry, as many brands seek to protect distinctive elements such as patterns, cuts, or logos. These disputes can result in significant costs, not only for the parties directly involved but also for the entire market due to the length and complexity of legal proceedings.

The evolution of judicial decisions demonstrates that product similarity in the fashion industry is a constantly evolving concept. The divergences in interpretation between the INPI and the Paris Court of Appeal highlight the need for legal clarification. More consistent jurisprudence would better frame trademark protections and mitigate current legal uncertainty.

Clarifying the criteria for product similarity would enhance legal certainty for fashion industry players. In the meantime, brands must remain particularly vigilant and adopt robust differentiation strategies to protect against litigation and consumer confusion.

The fashion industry, with its specificities, requires in-depth analysis of products, their uses, and consumer perceptions to ensure effective intellectual property protection. The challenge lies in brands’ ability to navigate this complexity while remaining innovative and distinctive.

Our experts are at your disposal to advise you on intellectual property strategy and online brand protection. Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of intellectual property lawyers.

Join us on social media!

Instagram

LinkedIn

France’s IP Legislation: Mastering Trademarks in a Global Playground

Written by Dreyfus21/10/2024

The French Intellectual Property Legal Framework: A Comprehensive Overview

The foundation of intellectual property (IP) law in France is a testament to its historical influence on legal traditions and reflects its progressive adaptation to new technological developments and globalization. The French IP system, particularly in the realm of trademarks, is robust, detailed, and harmonized with international conventions. It is structured to protect the creativity and innovations of individuals and companies alike.

The Core of French Trademark Law

France’s trademark law is primarily governed by Law No. 91-7 of January 4, 1991, which was amended by Ordinance No. 2019-1169 of November 13, 2019. These laws are codified in the French Intellectual Property Code (FIPC), which forms the backbone of domestic regulations. The amendments have largely been driven by the need to align French law with broader European Union directives and international standards.

Trademarks in France serve as legal instruments that safeguard distinct business identifiers, names, logos, designs, and even sounds by ensuring exclusive rights to their use. The legal system also extends protection to non-traditional trademarks, including motion marks, holograms, and multimedia representations. The core requirements for trademark protection in France are quite clear: a trademark must be capable of distinguishing goods or services from those of others and be capable of being represented clearly in the official registry. The National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) is the official body responsible for regulating trademarks in France.

A Global Player in Intellectual Property

France is not isolated in its legal approach to intellectual property. It actively participates in several key international agreements that shape global IP law. Among these, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Madrid Agreement (1892) have been foundational. Additionally, France’s signature on the TRIPS Agreement (1994) aligns it with international trade obligations, while agreements such as the Nice Agreement (1957) ensure a harmonized classification of goods and services worldwide. These treaties facilitate the international registration of trademarks and create a cohesive framework that allows French businesses to compete globally while protecting their intellectual property.

International agreements simplify the process of cross-border trademark registrations and provide mechanisms for French entities to enforce their rights in other jurisdictions. For instance, the Madrid Protocol (1997) and the Vienna Agreement (1973) offer frameworks for international classification and protection of figurative marks.

Establishing and Enforcing Rights: The Role of Registration

While registration is not mandatory to establish trademark ownership in many jurisdictions, in France, unregistered trademarks are not afforded legal protection. The concept of “common law” trademarks does not exist in French law. However, owners of well-known marks, defined under Article 6-bis of the Paris Convention, can use provisions under French tort law to prevent the misuse of similar signs. In practical terms, registration with the INPI ensures a more straightforward path to enforcement, including access to specialized courts and legal remedies in infringement cases.

Once registered, a French trademark is valid for a period of 10 years, and the registration can be renewed indefinitely. The registration also provides a presumption of validity, simplifying legal disputes related to ownership and use. Notably, the non-use of a trademark over a five-year period opens the door for third-party cancellation actions.

Challenging a Trademark: Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings

The French trademark system allows third parties to challenge applications and existing registrations. Once a trademark application is filed, it is published in the Trademark Gazette, opening a two-month window for opposition. Oppositions can be based on prior rights, including existing trademarks, copyright, company names, or geographical indications.

Cancellation proceedings are equally vital in maintaining the integrity of the trademark register. Such actions may be based on grounds including the lack of distinctiveness, bad faith, or non-use. The process typically involves multiple exchanges of evidence and legal arguments between the parties. Moreover, if a trademark is found to be misleading, deceptive, or descriptive, it can be invalidated.

Online and Digital Dimensions of Trademark Protection

As the world becomes increasingly digitized, the protection of trademarks in online environments has gained prominence. Under the Electronic Post and Telecommunications Code, French law provides mechanisms to cancel or transfer infringing domain names. Domain names, which hold significant commercial value, can form part of opposition proceedings if they have established sufficient recognition among the public.

Infringement in the online space is treated similarly to traditional forms of infringement, with courts recognizing the unique challenges posed by digital platforms. Trademarks can also be enforced under the French unfair competition law, which extends protection against unfair commercial practices, particularly in cases where foreign well-known trademarks are involved.

Licensing and Assignment: Managing Trademark Rights

Trademarks, as valuable business assets, can be licensed or assigned, partially or wholly, for specific goods and services. Licensing agreements, when recorded with the INPI, allow for easier enforcement of trademark rights and enable the licensee to pursue infringement claims if authorized. The assignment of trademarks, which can be for tax purposes or business restructuring, must be executed in writing and signed by both parties.

Recording such transactions is not mandatory for validity, but it is crucial for enforceability against third parties. The INPI manages the recorded licenses and assignments with processes designed to be efficient and cost-effective.

Conclusion: The Future of French Intellectual Property Law

France’s intellectual property legal framework is a dynamic system that balances tradition with modern innovation. Its alignment with international standards and robust domestic regulations ensures that businesses operating within its jurisdiction can effectively protect and enforce their intellectual property. As new technologies emerge, the French legal system will likely continue to adapt, ensuring that its IP laws remain relevant and responsive to the needs of creators and businesses alike.

At Dreyfus Law Firm, our team is well-versed in the intricacies of the French IP legal framework, ensuring that our clients confidently navigate the complexities of trademark registration, enforcement, and international agreements. We understand the unique challenges that arise in today’s digital landscape and are committed to providing tailored solutions that protect your creative assets.

By partnering with Dreyfus Law Firm, companies can effectively manage their intellectual property portfolios and safeguard their innovations. Our comprehensive approach facilitates smooth registration processes and equips clients with strategies to tackle potential infringements and disputes. With our guidance, businesses can focus on what they do best, innovating, while we handle the legal intricacies of IP management. Choose Dreyfus Law Firm to ensure your intellectual property is in expert hands!

Dreyfus Law Firm partners with an international network of lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

Follow us on social media!

Instagram

LinkedIn

Combating Counterfeiting: Organizing European Customs Surveillance

Written by Dreyfus14/10/2024

Counterfeiting represents a major challenge to modern economies. Each year, between four and twenty million counterfeit goods are intercepted by European customs, highlighting the extent of this phenomenon and the crucial importance of customs interventions in the fight against counterfeiting.

Extent of Counterfeiting and its Impacts

Although the collective imagination often associates counterfeiting with luxury products, statistics reveal a more nuanced reality. Toys rank first in the sad ranking of the most counterfeited products, followed by sports articles, empty packaging and labels, then food and beverages, which present significant risks to consumers. Clothing and accessories only come in fifth place. This diversity of products underscores the need for constant vigilance adapted to each category of goods.

Economically, counterfeiting represents a colossal threat, with a market valued at 410 billion euros, or 2.5% of global trade—far surpassing the drug trafficking market valued at 320 billion euros. Within the European Union, counterfeiting is estimated at 119 billion euros and accounts for 5.8% of imports. Beyond the economic impact, counterfeiting also harms the environment and public health, with products often manufactured under deplorable conditions and waste discharged into nature.

Legislation and Customs Actions

In the face of this challenge, the French Customs Code plays a predominant role. Article 414 provides for specific offenses such as smuggling and the importation or exportation of prohibited goods without declaration. These offenses lead to sanctions independent of those for counterfeiting.

The Code also grants customs extensive control powers, allowing them to conduct inspections on public roads, in businesses, and even, under certain conditions, in private homes.

Customs do not just control; they can also detain suspect goods. This detention can be initiated with or without a prior request for intervention by the rights holder. The verification process and the initiation of legal action are governed by strict deadlines (10 days if there is a request for intervention or 4 days without this document), thus providing a quick and effective response to combat counterfeiting.

Cooperation and Responsibilities

Collaboration between customs and rights holders is essential in determining whether goods are counterfeit. The goal is to decide whether to maintain the goods in retention.

However, in the event of seizure of non-counterfeit goods, the rules of liability are clear: customs may be held responsible for their employees’ errors, and rights holders may also be involved, according to applicable national law. This shared responsibility ensures a certain caution in seizure operations.

On a global scale, the fight against counterfeiting is supported by organizations such as the World Customs Organization and Interpol. At the European level, EUIPO, Europol, and OLAF (European Anti-Fraud Office) play a key role. Nationally, customs wield considerable power, often being the first to intercept goods upon their entry into the territory. Again, the cooperation is important.

Perspectives and Evolution

Counterfeiting is inseparable from other forms of criminality, such as drug trafficking and tax fraud, making its combat all the more complex and essential. By strengthening cooperation mechanisms and continuously adapting legislative measures, it is possible to hope for a significant reduction in this scourge. Vigilance remains crucial to protect consumers, support legitimate businesses, and preserve the integrity of global economic markets.

Dreyfus law firm, with its expertise in intellectual property law, is committed to continuing the fight against counterfeiting and contributes every day to stopping infringements on your trademark, designs, as well as domain names…

Dreyfus law firm is in partnership with an international network of lawyers specialized in Intellectual Property.

Contact us and join us on social media!

Instagram
LinkedIn

Litigations