Intellectual Property Law / Fashion Industry Litigation

Michael Kors, a prominent global fashion brand, has recently intensified its efforts to protect its intellectual property rights through various legal actions worldwide. These actions underscore the brand’s commitment to safeguarding its trademarks and design elements against infringement and unfair competition. This article examines Michael Kors’ recent IP enforcement efforts, drawing comparisons with historical case law and similar disputes within the fashion industry.

Recent Legal Actions by Michael Kors

1. Trademark Infringement in China

In December 2024, the Beijing Haidian Court awarded Michael Kors 5 million RMB in damages following a lawsuit against three defendants for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The court found that the defendants had used logos and branding that closely resembled Michael Kors’ “MK” trademarks, leading to consumer confusion. This ruling highlights the brand’s proactive stance in enforcing its IP rights in international markets.

2. Counterfeit Products on E-Commerce Platforms

Michael Kors, in collaboration with its watch licensee Fossil Group, filed a lawsuit against an Amazon seller known as “Angel Seller” for distributing counterfeit Michael Kors watches. The lawsuit, filed in a New York federal court, alleges that the defendant sold over 3,000 counterfeit items, misleading consumers into believing they were purchasing authentic products. Despite prior warnings and cease-and-desist letters, the defendant continued to sell the infringing products, prompting legal action.

Historical Case Law: Establishing Precedents in Fashion IP

Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp. (1961)

This landmark case established the “likelihood of confusion” test in trademark infringement cases. The court identified several factors to determine whether confusion exists, including the strength of the plaintiff’s mark, the degree of similarity between the marks, and the proximity of the goods. This framework has been instrumental in subsequent fashion IP cases, guiding courts in assessing trademark disputes.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. (1976)

This case introduced the “spectrum of distinctiveness” for trademarks, categorizing marks into generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful. The decision emphasized the importance of a mark’s distinctiveness in determining its eligibility for protection under trademark law. This classification system aids courts in evaluating the strength of a mark in fashion-related disputes.

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992)

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that trade dress could be inherently distinctive and protected under the Lanham Act without requiring proof of secondary meaning. The decision reinforced the protection of unique visual identities, a principle applicable to fashion brands asserting rights over their distinctive designs.

Comparative Analysis: Fashion Brand IP Disputes

Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around (2024)

Chanel sued the New York-based pre-owned luxury retailer for selling counterfeit bags and suggesting an affiliation with Chanel through their marketing. The case centers on the nominative fair-use doctrine and could significantly impact who is held responsible for counterfeit goods in the secondhand market. The trial’s outcome may influence practices on how products are authenticated and marketed in the resale industry.

Thom Browne v. Adidas (2021)

Fashion designer Thom Browne won a legal battle against sportswear giant Adidas over his use of striped designs. Adidas sued Browne, claiming his “Four-Bar Signature” and other parallel stripe designs on activewear infringed on Adidas’ trademark. The jury sided with Browne, finding no infringement. The dispute highlighted the challenges of balancing creative freedom with trademark protection in the fashion industry.

Conclusion

Michael Kors’ recent IP enforcement actions reflect a broader trend among fashion brands to assert and protect their trademarks in an increasingly global and digital marketplace. The application of historical case law principles, such as the “likelihood of confusion” test and the “spectrum of distinctiveness,” continues to guide courts in resolving fashion-related trademark disputes. As the fashion industry evolves, these legal precedents will remain pivotal in shaping the landscape of intellectual property protection.