Days before the trial began, Versace and Fashion Nova have settled a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit brought by the high-end fashion brand against its fast fashion counterpart. In a July 15 order, U.S. District Judge Rosella Oliver of the Central District of California stated that the parties “have agreed to a settlement in principle and will finalize outstanding matters prior to the preliminary conference scheduled for July 16, 2021, with the district judge.” The parties’ trial was due to begin on Monday.
The settlement ends a year-and-a-half case brought by Versace against infamous counterfeit Fashion Nova for allegedly selling “intentional copies and imitations of [its] The most famous and popular designs, signs, symbols, and other protected elements “attempt” to exploit the popularity and fame of Versace’s signature designs, and to trade on [its] Goodwill and valuable business reputation in order to increase profits and sales to fit Fashion Nova’s pockets.”
In the complaint it filed in California federal court in November 2019, Versace asserted that it reserves the rights to various prints and patterns it has used over the years. In blatant disregard [its] rights,” the Milan-based fashion house claimed Fashion Nova “manufactures, markets and sells clothing using the same or substantially similar copyrighted designs and confusingly similar brands and trade looks” without their permission, potentially leading to the potential that you should be confused with believing that Fashion Nova products are “manufactured, licensed by, or somehow connected with Versace,” when this is not the case. Through infringement of copyright and trademark rights, Versace has argued that the fast fashion company that Headquartered in California, she’s taking a hit – both financially and in terms of her illustrious image.
As for the designs that Versace claims Fashion Nova stole, those range from the iconic – copyrighted – and protected – black and gold Barocco print and “Pop Hearts” print to the various branding of the “Greca” link and of course the “Jungle” “printed” dress she is famous for. Jennifer Lopez in 2000, a composition consisting of “a green tropical leaf and bamboo pattern, a plunging neckline that extends to the navel, a high-cut leg opening, and a round brooch where the plunging neckline meets the high-cut leg of long, open sleeves.” Versace claimed consumers associate it with Instantly design the dress with a single source, leading to the protection of business apparel for the “special collection”.
Fashion Nova responded to Versace’s complaint in January 2020, denying the bulk of Versace’s strongly worded allegations, and outlining a number of defenses. On the copyright front, Fashion Nova argued that while Versace does, in fact, maintain copyright recordings for “certain designs involved in this lawsuit,” those recordings should be invalidated because Versace is “copyright protected.” [prints] … lacking originality “,” are standard geometric shapes and patterns “,” in the public domain “,” widely used in the fashion/clothing industry. “
Regarding the reasons for the brand/apparel infringement identified by Versace in its complaint, Fashion Nova’s attorney claimed that it should likewise be banned for a number of different reasons. For one thing, Fashion Nova has argued that “there is no possibility of confusion between [its] The allegedly infringing products and Versace’s alleged trademarks and/or trade dress.” Even if there is confusion, Fashion Nova has confirmed that Versace’s claims are off limits because the labels in question — from the “Medusa Head” and “Greca” designs to the “J. Lo” – functional and, therefore, is not actually protected because trademark law extends only to the decoration of the product, non-functional Features.
However, Fashion Nova confirmed that even if Versace has valid trademark rights, and functionality is not an issue, it still has to be phased out because it did not use the trademark-protected graphics and brand-covered dresses of the Al Ahlia brand. Instead, I used it decoratively (not source identification), so the infringement is not an appropriate claim.
The settlement, first reported by Bloomberg, comes nearly a year after Versace won a discovery dispute over whether Donatella Versace, the brand’s creative director and sister to its late founder Gianni Versace, should testify in connection with the case. The primary problem with inconsistencies that have since been resolved has been whether Ms. Versace had relevant and unique information that was not provided by Antonio Maciarillo, Versace’s Senior Director of Heritage and Special Projects, in his own recent affidavit. Fashion Nova argued that despite Masciariello’s dismissal in August 2020, there was information regarding the case in question which she was unable to obtain, resulting in the necessity for Ms Versace to testify.
In response to Fashion Nova’s request that the court compel Ms. Versace to testify, the fashion brand argued in a letter of its own that Fashion Nova’s attempt, among other things, to compel Ms. Versace to testify was not an exercise in discovering legitimate facts, but instead, A tactic of pressure”—most likely to pressure Versace to agree to a settlement of the lawsuit—“and harassment.”
Judge Oliver sided with Versace in her August 13 order, finding that “in connection with the general question of the dismissal of the creators or designers of commercial dresses, the Court has found it persuasive.” [Versace’s] Emphasis on that [Fashion Nova] No lawsuit was cited to support the claim that filings by these creators or designers are common in intellectual property lawsuits for purposes of supporting the invalidity defense.”
*The case is Gianni Versace Srl v. Fashion Nova, Inc., 2: 2019-cv-10074 (CDCal.).