Retail Insight Network’s Post

When band names clash with brand names, things can get messy. The Los Angeles luxury fashion company Chrome Hearts is suing rock legend Neil Young and his latest band Chrome Hearts for trade mark infringement. The fashion company says the use of the identical name by the band and its associated merchandise could confuse fans into thinking they’re connected. The risk of confusion is heightened as the fashion company has previously collaborated with musicians such as the Rolling Stones. The case has now landed in U.S. federal court, with the fashion company seeking damages and an order to stop the band from using the name. Here’s the key takeaway: Before you name your business, brand, or band, it pays to do your homework. Even if a name feels like a perfect fit, it may already be owned by someone else. #TradeMarkInfringement #NeilYoung #IntellectualProperty #InfinityIP

Cutesy Spelling is Not a Secret Formula for Brand Protection and Success CATO OF TEXAS L.P.., a longtime fashion retailer owning the “CATO” trademarks, has sued Oakley, Inc., the eyewear company, alleging that Oakley’s use of the marks “KATO” and “OAKLEY KATO” for sunglasses infringes Cato’s federally registered and common-law trademark rights by creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. The matter shouldn't be a surprise to Oakley because its prior application for a trademark for KATO was denied by the USPTO due to a conflict with the plaintiff here, Cato of Texas. Because many products are promoted verbally, rather than in writing, Cato of Texas has good odds of prevailing here.  The fact that the putative infringer changed some letters in the word without changing the sound, does not suddenly render the infringer to be immune. Intentionally misspelled words may help you procure a domain name (e.g., Tumblr, Flickr), but don't be fooled into thinking that this creative spelling is immune from trademark infringement. 

Chanel successfully blocks an attempt to register JNANEL at EUIPO. Trademarks, grow in power as your brand grows. A mark like CHANEL has a proven strength to its name, allowing it to beat out marks that might not be apparently so similar. The applicant behind the JNANEL mark was a small time business, but this is a reminder of how IP enforcement strategies are ramping up against anyone and everyone, and is a good display of the zero-tolerance policies many strong fashion brands employ to avoid weakening their brand through lax enforcement history that could undermine them at some point.

Brandy Melville has filed a lawsuit against Temu for trademark infringement and counterfeiting. The fashion retailer claims Temu sells counterfeit Brandy Melville products and uses identical photographs from their website. Brandy Melville is seeking at least $1 million in damages. This follows a similar lawsuit filed against Shein in June. The case highlights ongoing IP battles in fashion. #SchroderDavisLaw #FashionLaw #EntertainmentLaw #IPLaw #Temu #CounterfeitDesigner #CounterfeitFashion #FashionLawCases https://lnkd.in/eY_uvYqN 

Mishcon de Reya has successfully defeated an appeal from Adidas over a trademark dispute with fashion brand Thom Browne on the use of white stripes on its clothes. Adidas, represented by Hogan Lovells, had sought to appeal a High Court decision from November 2024, which found that Mishcon’s client Thom Browne had not infringed Adidas trademarks with its ‘four stripe design’. Adidas sought in its appeal to reinstate six trademarks that protected its three-stripes design, but in its verdict, the Court of Appeal found that the previous judge had "made no error of law or principle in her assessment”. That November judgment stated: “...the average, reasonably observant, consumer paying a moderate degree of attention will generally perceive the difference between three stripes and four." Full story from Jack Womack: https://lnkd.in/ddjnpJQU

#Zara’s #New #Identity: #Inditex #Secures #Approval #for #Numeric #Trademark #26 #1 #18 #1 The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Inditex so that it can use as Zara’s identifying trademark the series of numbers: 26 1 18 1, which in the Anglo-Saxon alphabet correspond to the order of the letters of the group’s flagship, where the ‘Z’ occupies the 26th place; the ‘A’, the 1; and the ‘R’, the 18th place. In a ruling at the end of September 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Madrid Provincial Court that denied Zara’s request and upheld the refusal of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office. Now, the high court has upheld the appeal filed by Inditex. The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office argued that this numerical series “lacked sufficient distinctiveness to be registered as a trademark”, an issue that the Madrid Court of Appeals included in its decision. However, the Supreme Court has considered that “the Provincial Court, implicitly, has been guided by a restricted criterion of distinctiveness of numerical marks that goes beyond the provisions of Community and national legislation and its interpretation by the Court of Justice”. Inditex has received the green light to its claim because “the Trademark Law, in line with the Trademark Directives and the European Union Trademark Regulation, admits trademarks consisting of numbers,“ the Supreme Court has announced. This number corresponds to the letters of Zara in the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, where ‘Z’ occupies the 26th place; ‘A’, 1; and ‘R’, 18th place. “And since it is notorious that the Zara trademark has great significance within the applicant group of companies, it cannot be ruled out at all that an average consumer would easily identify the products marked with the numerical sign with its business origin,“ the Supreme Court stated. “Nor can it be conclusively stated that the position (order) of the numbers prevents the sign from being mentally retained by the consumer, especially if we note that there are actually four numbers and one of them is repeated (twenty-six, one, eighteen, one),“ adds the grounds of the ruling. https://lnkd.in/eTdyd8cy Modes - 12 oct 2025

Counsel for Adidas urged an appeals court on Wednesday to revive six of its trademarks protecting the position of the famous three-stripes logo on clothing in its battle with luxury clothing brand Thom Browne, in a major battle over the validity of position marks. https://lnkd.in/eZNqfNHt

#Zara’s #New #Identity: #Inditex #Secures #Approval #for #Numeric #Trademark #26 #1 #18 #1 The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Inditex so that it can use as Zara’s identifying trademark the series of numbers: 26 1 18 1, which in the Anglo-Saxon alphabet correspond to the order of the letters of the group’s flagship, where the ‘Z’ occupies the 26th place; the ‘A’, the 1; and the ‘R’, the 18th place. In a ruling at the end of September 2025, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment of the Madrid Provincial Court that denied Zara’s request and upheld the refusal of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office. Now, the high court has upheld the appeal filed by Inditex. The Spanish Patent and Trademark Office argued that this numerical series “lacked sufficient distinctiveness to be registered as a trademark”, an issue that the Madrid Court of Appeals included in its decision. However, the Supreme Court has considered that “the Provincial Court, implicitly, has been guided by a restricted criterion of distinctiveness of numerical marks that goes beyond the provisions of Community and national legislation and its interpretation by the Court of Justice”. Inditex has received the green light to its claim because “the Trademark Law, in line with the Trademark Directives and the European Union Trademark Regulation, admits trademarks consisting of numbers,“ the Supreme Court has announced. This number corresponds to the letters of Zara in the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, where ‘Z’ occupies the 26th place; ‘A’, 1; and ‘R’, 18th place. “And since it is notorious that the Zara trademark has great significance within the applicant group of companies, it cannot be ruled out at all that an average consumer would easily identify the products marked with the numerical sign with its business origin,“ the Supreme Court stated. “Nor can it be conclusively stated that the position (order) of the numbers prevents the sign from being mentally retained by the consumer, especially if we note that there are actually four numbers and one of them is repeated (twenty-six, one, eighteen, one),“ adds the grounds of the ruling. https://lnkd.in/egRnQB76 Modes - 12 oct 2025

RPM back (or still?) in the spotlight of competition authorities ⚖️ Today, the European Commission imposed fines totaling EUR 157 million on fashion brands Gucci, Chloé, and Loewe. According to the Commission, the fashion companies restricted the ability of their independent retailers to set their own retail prices - both online and offline - for branded products. The investigation followed unannounced inspections (dawn raids) and the companies cooperated with the EU Commission through the antitrust cooperation procedure mechanism. This decision is a strong reminder that antitrust compliance and trainings in distribution systems remain crucial - a topic that was also actively discussed just last week at the AIJA - International Association of Young Lawyers in Amsterdam. 👉 Read the Commission’s press release here: https://lnkd.in/dqZmKPyN

The European Commission has fined fashion companies Gucci, Chloé and Loewe a total of €157 million ($182.2 million) for allegedly breaching the bloc's competition rules by restricting the retail prices of their products. https://lnkd.in/ebqnc6Rv