|
Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot |
Still dreaming
of the outfits and accessories seen on the catwalks at recent Fashion Weeks
around the world? Such dreams may come with legal headaches in some cases, eg
for Italian fashion house Gucci.
Here’s what
Kevin writes:
“The first half of 2015 has been a fairly animated
one for Gucci. First, its (long-standing) cross-border trade mark battle against Guess? has taken
a new shape. While the action that the Italian house had brought in France was dismissed
on 30 January 2015, on 11 August 2015 Gucci won
against Guess? before an Australian court.
This legal saga, however, has not been the only
element spicing life up at Gucci.
Like other fashion houses [the latest piece
of gossip appears to be that Phoebe Philo may be
about to leave Céline] also Gucci has taken part in the fashion game of musical chairs.
|
Bijules nail rings |
And Gucci might be the infringer this time.
Indeed, on 23 September last Gucci unveiled its
Spring/Summer 2016 women’s collection. Amidst numerous accessories, golden
nail rings could be spotted on the hands of models. It was the first time that
the Italian house proposed this type of jewels.
The response of the fashion world has been
immediate.
Among other reactions, one has to be
particularly underlined. It is the one of American jeweller Bijules,
also famous in the luxury market for its … nail rings. They are worn by celebrities
like Beyoncé and Rihanna, just to mention a couple.
In a statement, Bijules designer Kim Jules said that Bijules
may consider starting proceedings against Gucci for copyright infringement. She
also pointed out how Gucci’s new creative director could have not been unaware
of Bijules creations in his former capacity as Gucci head of accessories.
While waiting for future (contentious) developments,
we may want to take a look at and compare the nail rings by Bijules and Gucci, respectively.
|
Gucci nail rings |
The “Bijules Serpensive Nail Ring” was
registered with the US Copyright Office in 2007. As such it is protected by
copyright under US law. The relevant rings – made of silver or gold – are composed
as follows. The upper part of the ring reproduces the shape of a woman’s nail,
which is attached to the finger through a ring. The lower part is shaped as a
snake directed towards the hand. Overall these rings superpose the nail onto the
distal phalanx of the wearer. Several models exist on the market, including one
encrusted with crystals. A variation of the size of the nail can be also found.
The nail rings presented during Gucci’s show
are all golden. They also reproduce
the shape of a nail, that is juxtaposed to
the nail of the wearer thanks to a ring at its basis.
In several versions there is also the double G monogram of Gucci reproduced in small
dimensions. There is also a version in which a golden bee is to be found on the
basis of the ring. It is noteworthy to underline that the bee points towards
the hand of the wearer. Also, other versions are made with spikes on the nail.
The global size of the nail ring is variable, depending on the version.
It can be said that there might be a strong
similarity between those nails rings, especially with regard to some versions. It
is especially true after comparing detail by detail the rings of Bijules and
Gucci.
But to hear the continuation of this story, we have
to wait to see what Bijules eventually decides to do (also considering that it
is unclear whether Gucci intends to market its own rings). If an action for
copyright infringement is eventually brought, it will be interesting to see on what
defence(s) (if any) the Italian fashion house will try to rely.”
Just to clarify, registration isn't necessary under US law, it just enables statutory damages.
ReplyDelete