Coach Services, Inc. (Coach), the luxury leather goods maker, is currently in a legal battle with Target Corporation (Target) over perceived trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition on the part of the discount retail chain.  Coach filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in September 2009, alleging that Target sold unauthorized, exact or confusingly similar reproductions of Coach’s ERGO and Signature Patchwork handbag designs.  Coach Services, Inc. v. Target Corp., No. 09-8329 (SDNY, filed Sept. 28, 2009).  Coach owns trademark registrations for its Signature “C” logo; the company’s Signature Patchwork collection consists of handbags made from patches of various fabrics combined with patches of fabric that show repetitions of the Signature “C” trademark. 

Target has denied that Coach’s handbag designs feature any distinctive trade dress that could be infringed, and has further denied that its own handbags are confusingly similar to Coach’s handbags.  The discount retailer argues that Coach’s purported trade dress – its fold-over design for the ERGO collection and its patchwork design for the Signature Patchwork collection – does not identify Coach as the source of the product and therefore is not protectable.  Therefore, Target contends, its sale of the handbags at issue does not constitute trade dress infringement or dilution.  The corporation also contends that Coach’s claims are barred because the luxury retailer has not been damaged by Target’s handbag sales.  Target has moved for declaratory judgment, asking the district court to affirm, among other things, that: (1) Coach’s purported trade dress is not protectable; (2) the Coach and Target handbag designs are not confusingly similar; and (3) that Target has not acted in bad faith.  Last month, Coach opposed Target’s motion for declaratory judgment.  Coach continues to press for a trial, arguing that its ERGO and Signature Patchwork handbag designs are inherently distinctive trade dress that should be given appropriate protection. 

Coach’s suit against Target is just one of many that have been filed in recent years to combat the perceived copying of another’s design, otherwise known as “design piracy.”   It most frequently occurs when mainstream retailers reproduce couture designs for the mass market.  Designers whose work is copied claim that the knock-offs tarnish their brands, undercut their business, and impede their ability to create their own lower-priced clothing lines.

There are currently no US copyright protections for fashion designs.  Instead, many American designers attempt to protect their work from misappropriation through trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and dilution claims.  Many of these lawsuits settle out of court or are dismissed. 

For years, the American fashion industry has lobbied Congress for increased design protections.  Their efforts seemed to be rewarded in August 2007, when Sen. Charles Schumer first introduced the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.  The bill would give properly registered fashion designs three years of copyright protection, allowing designers a limited time to profit from their unique designs.  Though the Design Piracy Prohibition Act had bipartisan support, it remains pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Arent Fox is closely monitoring all developments related to this legislation.   

To find out more about design piracy and related legal issues involving fashion designers and retailers, please contact:

Anthony V. Lupo
lupo.anthony@arentfox.com
202.857.6353

David S. Modzeleski
modzeleski.david@arentfox.com
202.857.6073

Grace L. Applefeld
applefeld.grace@arentfox.com
202.857.6498