Too sexy for the U.S. Senate?

When Massachusetts state senator Scott Brown was a gorgeous twenty-two year old law student at Boston College in 1982, he posed nude for Cosmo just days after his 1L exams.  In fact, he won Cosmo's "America's Sexiest Man" contest in June 1982.  Today he is a Republican running for Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat.  He definitely wins my vote for "America's Sexiest Male Politician" and "America's Sexiest Male Law Student Ever."  Who says posing nude would irreparably damage a law student's ambition to become a highly accomplished politician?  This is America, land of the free and home of the brave.

Update: My boyfriend, who shall remain nameless on this blog, states that he is a contender for "America's Sexiest Male Law Student Ever."  I will reconsider my vote.

trade dress infringement: Isabel Marant v. Aldo

Aldo, I see that you are infringing the trade dress of Isabel Marant's $1295 Otway boot from her Fall/Winter 2009 collection, because Aldo's $150 Zabrocki boot looks just like it.  The Isabel Marant boot is pictured on the right.
  

Trade Dress Infringement: Jimmy Choo v. Forever 21

Dear Jimmy Choo,

Forever 21 recently infringed your trade dress by copying the product configuration of your black studded fishnet Karina booties.  The statutory test for trade dress infringement under Lanham Act §43 is satisfied, because the trade dress of the two products are confusingly similar (I was actually confused); the features of the trade dress - the studs, fishnet, and pattern - are primarily nonfunctional (because exclusive use of the features would not put competitors at a significant non-reputation related disadvantage, considering that the studs and fishnet pattern is not essential to the use or purpose of the shoe, and that the studs and fishnet pattern does not affect the cost or quality of the shoe); and the product configuration of the Karina booties have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning (because fashionistas including myself have come to associate the shape of the Karina design with the Jimmy Choo brand as the source of the product).  The use of this particular product configuration by Forever 21 confuses and misleads consumers familiar with high-end designer shoes such as Jimmy Choo, and it creates a substantial likelihood of confusion.  Below I have posted images comparing the $1095 Jimmy Choo black studded fishnet Karina booties and the $32.80 Forever 21 Glitterati pump.

Best wishes, if you choose to file a lawsuit against "forever-sued" Forever 21.

Sincerely,

Laura Ng
Editor-in-chief, Sartorial Editorial
2L (seeking summer law associate position), Georgia State University College of Law

  

Anna Wintour, Price Fixing is Illegal!

By Laura Ng

(c) 2009 Laura Ng and The Docket.  First appeared on The Docket Online, Sept. 24, 2009.

Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue and quite possibly the most powerful person in the fashion industry, may think that she is now above the law.  At the Town Hall meeting of the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) on July 28, 2009, Ms. Wintour asked whether “someone [could] lead a committee that would make ground rules for retailers of when the discounting starts, and then all the retailers can agree to it.”[1]  When CFDA president, Diane von Furstenberg, immediately pointed out the illegality of price fixing, Ms. Wintour responded, “Is that something we can change?  We have friends in the White House now!”[2]

Granted, First Lady Michelle Obama does wear the latest frocks from young American high-end fashion designers, and the recession did strike a huge blow to the global fashion industry, but Ms. Wintour is unreasonably overestimating her influence at the White House. American fashion designers, retailers, and magazine editors are not exempt from the federal antitrust law under the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7).  The purpose of antitrust law is to protect trade and commerce from restraints, monopolies, price-fixing, and price discrimination.[3]  Ms. Wintour’s proposed price fixing would directly violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, because interference with price setting by the free market economy is illegal per se,[4] even when the interference indirectly affects prices.[5]  Ms. Wintour’s suggested ground rules on discounting would interfere with the setting of prices by the free market economy, because the ground rules could hinder desperate retailers, such as Saks Fifth Avenue, from independently setting the record low 70% discounts on high fashion luxury goods that consumers have seen since November 2008.

At least Diane von Furstenberg realizes that a price fixing conspiracy is not a legitimate answer to the luxury fashion industry’s search for a new business model.

---

[1] Irina Aleksander, At CFDA Town Meeting, Wintour Proposes Discount by Committee; DVF: ‘That’s Illegal!’, The New York Observer, July 28, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Black’s Law Dictionary.

[4] U.S. v. Container Corp. of America, 393 U.S. 333 (1969).

[5] U.S. v. General Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127 (1966).