Textile Company Drags A Bunch Of Clothing Companies To Court Over Copyrighted Stripe Pattern

from the system-works! dept

We've previously discussed how the lack of IP protection in the fashion industry really hasn't kept many designers from making tons of money, despite maximalists' protests to the contrary. The larger issue seems to be counterfeit goods, rather than anyone passing off someone else's creation as their own, and even that has its own stimulatory effect. But there will always be those that try to assert control over aspects of the design process, because trying to control the end product gets you nowhere.

Design Collection Inc., a "textile and garment resource," has filed a fistful of lawsuits alleging that a multitude of clothing retailers have ripped off its copyrighted horizontal stripe pattern. The latest filings target a dozen or so retailers, as well as a number of Does for allegedly infringing on this:




That's from one filing naming Jinwon Apparel and The Buckle (among others).

Here's another:




It takes a seriously creative eye to view these as infringing. Take any garment with horizontal stripes of varying widths and shades and hold it next to another one and you're bound to see some similarities. The closeup photos don't really clarify much. If anything, they seem to indicate there are more differences than similarities. The top one's pattern seems close until you see the entire end product, at which point the comparison falls apart. The lower photo has even fewer similarities in the closeup, never mind the overall photo that shows us only part of the entire product.

And so on it goes. Design Collection has sued clothing retailers over a few different patterns (the stripes surfacing most often) going all the way back to 2011, when ironically enough, it was sued by United Fabrics International for allegedly ripping off some of UFI's designs. (That UFI's designs are protected under copyright is itself a bit of a joke, considering most are generic floral patterns or animal prints.)

While this may be part of the fashion world where copyright protection really doesn't exist, designers can copyright patterns like Design Collection has done here. The copyright office, unlike the USPTO, doesn't make any determination as to whether the submission deserves protection. If you register it, it's yours and you can do what you want with it, like "license it" (read: sell bolts of fabric -- you can't actually "license" fabric) to apparel companies or, you know, drag them to court and make them point out how their irregular stripes are significantly different from your irregular stripes.

Some of this ridiculousness (copyright fights over patterns) has previously surfaced in odd places, like quilting… and origami. Recognizable patterns would normally fall under the purview of trademark (think Louis Vuitton's infamous "LV"), so seeing something as generic as stripes being the center of a copyright lawsuit is something of an anomaly.

Design Collection may have a valid claim here, but I'm not seeing it. The tendency of anything with stripes of varying widths and colors to resemble something else equally as randomized pattern-wise would seem to indicate that the "design" isn't original enough to warrant protection. But a copyright isn't a trademark, so that bar may never need to be approached, much less surmounted.

Put a skeptical enough mind to it and these lawsuits look more like an aggrieved company poring through clothing companies' offerings until it can find something to use to punish them for choosing a different supplier. Take a look at the wording used in the filings:
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, had access to Subject Design including, without limitation, through (a) access to Plaintiff’s showroom and/or design library; (b) access to illegally distributed copies of the Subject Design by third-party vendors and/or DOE Defendants, including without limitation international and/or overseas converters and printing mills; (c) access to Plaintiff’s strike-offs and samples, and (d) garments manufactured and sold to the public bearing fabric lawfully printed with Subject Design by Plaintiff for its customers.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that one or more of the Defendants manufactures garments and/or is a garment vendor. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that said Defendant(s) has an ongoing business relationship with Defendant retailers, and each of them, and supplied garments to said retailers, which garments infringed Subject Design in that said garments were composed of fabric which featured an unauthorized print design(s) that were identical or substantially similar to Subject Design, or were an illegal modification thereof.
The first paragraph entertains global conspiracy theories while the second alleges "illegal modifications" to its designs. The first is going to be awfully hard to prove and the latter may invite unwanted discussion about non-infringing derivative works.

All in all, this seems to be a case of really really wanting to see infringement where none exists and hoping the defendants will be happier to settle rather than try to defend themselves from a variety of claims that might prove difficult to disprove.






Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:29am

    Wow, those samples, it's like looking in a fucking mirror.


    Not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 10:52am

      Re:

      seriously: my work is graphic in nature, and i have a pretty good eye for it, other than they are both colored stripes, they look NOTHING alike to me...
      TOTALLY different patterns and sequences...
      (*OTHER* than they are both stripes and colored)
      BUT if this were a valid case, i would DEMAND that they be EXACTLY the same to find any infringement (ASSUMING it is a valid issue)...
      not 'oh these colored strips remind me of those colored stripes'... no, they had better be EXACTLY the same...

      besides, i would bet there are PLENTY of 'primitive' 'traditional' designs that pre-date 'THEIR' designs by hundreds and thousands of years...

      i'm hatin' on them...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Baron von Robber, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:31am

    Due to recent litigations...

    ...nudist colony enrollment increases ten fold.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:31am

    It takes a seriously creative eye to view these as infringing.

    I'd argue just the opposite. I'm the type of guy who'd look at two object and be like "Eh, I don't see the difference" and even I don't think most of these things look even remotely alike. To me it'd take an extremely lack of creativity to not notice the differences.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:32am

    Dr. Who (Tom Baker version) would like a word:

    http://www.doctorwhoscarf.com/gallery.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:32am

    WTF?

    Did they really just copyright a bunch of horizontal lines?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:33am

    An extremely creative eye, or a litigious one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:34am

    TOS on Everything

    "(read: sell bolts of fabric to -- you can't actually "license" fabric)"

    Seems to me that lots of things come with TOS's these days. Phones, cars, airline reservations, community associations, etc. Why not fabric? Are you anti textile? Are you anti production? Why even the baker that made your breakfast muffin deserves lifetime plus seventy years compensation for that morsel.

    /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gracey (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:37am

    ...jesus

    ... they're stripes for god's sake.

    Gimme a break.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 1:34pm

      Re:

      ... they're stripes for god's sake.

      Don't be disrespectful. These are the writings of an author.


                  To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:52am

    it may well take a seriously creative eye to view these as infringing, but it takes a seriously small and simple mind to try to stop someone from using stripes or hoops in clothing design!! damn ridiculous, but then the USA has the most ridiculous patent and copyright laws of anywhere and are still churning them out at thousands a week!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 9:59am

    May I point the companies being sued at the Magnificent Seven anti-troll business model by Cory Doctorow. It is an mp3 worth listening to.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 10:02am

    They should not limit themselves to suing just clothing manufacturers. The copyright isn't limited to market. If a car manufacturer used that combination, sue them as well. Hell, why not copyright a blue shirt. Then sue manufacturers of blue cars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 10:02am

    "And all the greedy gushes out through their small souls"

    (Finnegan's Wake, J Joyce)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 10:04am

    Here I thought some limey was pissed that another made a Dr Who Tom Baker scarf, now that would be funny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 10:08am

    Rainbow

    Patented!!!
    Gets paid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    housh (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 10:12am

    Reminds me of a tech company that tried to litigate rounded rectangles.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 11:06am

    Wonder if this textile company is going to start suing over "infringing" barcodes?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 11:51am

    So how long till we get down to thread being patented followed by sheep?

    Those examples look nothing alike to me beyond them being stripes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DB (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 12:20pm

    Don't use Dr. Who as an example of prior art. He picked up the scarf as a vintage clothing store specializing the very best copyrighted designs of centuries earlier.

    Irregular width stripes were a innovative design breakthrough.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 1:55pm

      Re:

      Irregular width stripes were a innovative design breakthrough.

      17 U.S.C. § 102(b)
      In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

      No matter how innovative a design breakthrough it may have been, irregular-width stripes are no more than an idea, a concept, a principle.

      The discovery of that glorious idea, that fantastic concept, that splendiforous principle—the new discovery does not merit copyright.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Babs, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 1:23pm

    Do my eyes deceive me, or is the same law firm that first sued Design Collection now suing for them? I guess DC decided they won a case about stripes once, maybe they will again. Weird.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 1:34pm

    Simple, takie it to JURY trial, and demand attorney's fees.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 1:48pm

    The problem is plaintiffs can sue for such ridiculous nonsense and if they lose the penalties are far less than the penalties they get if they win. Stricter bogus lawsuit penalties need to be imposed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lurker Keith, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 3:31pm

    Looks like...

    Those looks like a wall I've seen at my McDonald's. They look NOTHING like the clothing they're complaining about! & even what I've seen at McDonald's appears to have been hand-painted, so even it isn't exact.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Hammad Haseeb, Aug 20th, 2014 @ 9:31pm

    Textile Manufacturer in Pakistan| Exporter & Distributor, Garments, Towels, Apparels

    ZEPHYRS is a manufacturer & exporter of home textile, technical textile and apparels, using pure cotton and various blends of cotton and polyester yarns. Aprons and uniforms (specifically for technical use), Towels, kitchen towels and fitted sheets are the main source of earning repute.

    Our products meet all the required Standards for color fastness, light fastness, flammability, fiber content, tensile strength, AZO dye free etc. As market leading contract textile specialists, we serve a wide range of customers which include: Hotels, Hospitals, Wholesalers, Importers, Airlines, Hospitality Services, Care Home Distributors, Spas, Laundries, Event Management and Promotional Companies and many more.
    An experience of 15 years made us compete by prices and quality.
    Firm supervision of each order distinguishes us from our competitors. To our pride, we are now serving our own competitors in china.

    Web Address: www.zephyrstextile.com
    Email: zephyrs.hammad@gmail.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jack Sparrow, Oct 20th, 2014 @ 2:02am

    Batter clothing is important to get more handsome & beautiful look.I like this swapstyle and yes i know that things will be so alright.You have to have money to keep up with what’s new for each season.I’m really impressed to this article is given me the guidance for the quick fashion wear.


    Classified Websites

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John, Nov 17th, 2014 @ 1:02pm

    People will sue over just about anything nowdays to get a quick dollar, pretty sickening if you ask me.

    Polyamide Fabric

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.