To keep up to date on the latest posts and comments, please follow CaseClothesed on Twitter!

Or if you prefer email, sign up to recieve email notifications about new posts!

It goes without saying that the perfect pair of jeans is worth more than the price tag. Finding that pair that fits great, is the perfect color, and is good quality is a combination that one might actually say is priceless. True Religion has gone to great lengths to protect what it deems is the perfect combination and recently won an $863.9 million cybersquatting suit.

Few countries possess the power to affect market change on as grand a scale as China- and even fewer can set policy that affect the way companies do business globally.

A recent announcement by China’s State Food and Drug Administration outlines a potential policy shift, alluding to a proposed approval for the use of alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics. China’s encouragement and regulatory requirement of animal testing cosmetics is an oft-debated topic; and the move to change this law will have great financial and logistical ramifications.

Sacha Baron Cohen is known for his notorious role in the movie Borat. Despite the movie’s positive reception by some and outright rejection by others, many can simply agree that one of the infamous scenes of the movie was where he wore an extremely unique, and albeit revealing, one-piece swimsuit. Apparently someone from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office remembered this swimsuit from Borat and used this reference to reject a patent application for a “Scrotal Support Garment.”

Inventor Donald R. Quinn first filed an application to patent this apparatus in 2009. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Quinn described his invention as “support devices for male genitalia, and particularly to a scrotal support garment that provides support for the scrotum for patients having ailments or medical conditions affecting the genitalia or groin in order to relieve pain or discomfort.”

An Orlando law firm filed two trademark applications with the USPTO on behalf of the murdered teen’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, on March 21.

While many Jets fans were excited to find out that the beloved Tim Tebow was traded to the Jets, the effects of this news brought less excitement for sports merchandise giant Nike.  Nike claims in a complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, that after Tebow’s big trade to the New York Jets, Reebok allegedly started producing and selling illegal Tim Tebow Jets merchandise. Nike is seeking an injunction preventing Reebok from selling the merchandse, legal fees and compensatory and punitive damages

In 2010 the N.F.L. announced that Reebok’s exclusive license to make and sell on field apparel, including uniforms and fan gear, which lasted 10 years and was worth about $250 million to the N.F.L. will expire and that Nike will be the new exclusive Licensee.

Nike claims that while Reebok’s License with the N.F.L association ends in March, their deal to sell Teebow – related products ended at the end of February and thus Nike has exclusive right to sell the Tim Tebow merchandise.  Both the N.F. L. and Reebok decline to comment.

According to WWD, a jury in Memphis, Tennessee awarded Coach Inc. a little over $5 million on Tuesday March 21, 2012. The jury awarded this sum after it found that Frederick Goodfellow, an owner of a flea market, was guilty of infringing upon the brand’s trademarks. Based upon the lawsuit filed back in 2010 in the Western District of Tennessee, Goodfellow rented space to vendors who were selling counterfeit Coach products. Coach responded by suing Goodfellow along with the offending vendors for $2 million per counterfeit mark, the maximum in statutory damages. The jury subsequently found that the defendants infringed upon 21 of Coach’s trademarks and therefore awarded Coach $240,000 per mark infringed. According to WWD, this amounted to $5.04 million.

Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F) has had its fair share of sticky lawsuits that involved racism and discrimination as well as a mouthful of criticism and accusations of misguided attempts at ethnic humor. However, it seems like A&F is off the hook this time with the latest incident of a racist descriptor attached to cargo pants that appeared to be sold by A&F.

Earlier this week, Facebook posts, Tweets, blog posts, articles and more flooded the internet with angry assertions about A&F who was selling a pair of “Ni-er Brown” cargo pants. Excuse me? Yes, this was definitely too ridiculous to be true. Fortunately for A&F, the website that was selling these racist pants was in no way affiliated with the American retailer.

While Penn Intellectual Property Group (PIPG) was busy preparing for its Fashion Law Symposium, it had also caught the eye of Louis Vuitton’s legal department. It was not the promise of discussion on intellectual property protection for fashion that had the fashion giant so interested but instead the flyer giving notice of the event.

Abercrombie & Fitch is one of the several brands that has a very high esteem for brand image. A & F puts a lot of work into creating a specific image for their brand and goes to great lengths to keep negative connotations away [e.g.  Fitchuation]. This being said A & F has discovered the website www.abercrombie-and-fitchoutlet.com. The site is not only accused of selling counterfeit A & F pants but also of using racial language in the desciption of these pants.

A & F states that “www.abercrombie-and-fitchoutlet.com”, is in no way affiliated with Abercrombie & Fitch and in any event, we do not condone racist language. This is a counterfeit website and we have initiated legal proceedings to shut it down.”

Fashionista reports that this may have been a simple language translation error (asumptively from Chinese to English), and when they contacted a customer service representative of the site he apologized profusely. For Fashionista’s conversation with the customer service representative click here.

Is the modeling industry getting a makeover? Fashionistas are constantly flooded with pictures of super skinny models, but HEALTHY is the new skinny and nations worldwide are taking a stand.

Connie Gibilaro shed light on the Council of Fashion Designers of America’s (CFDA) initiative to raise awareness amongst models about the dangers of eating disorders. Although the CFDA released recommended guidelines with tips, (such as seeking professional help in overcoming eating disorders, prohibiting underage drinking, ensuring a smoke-free environment, supplying healthy foods, among other things) there is no enforcement of these policies.

Tyler Davis blogged about the British Advertising Standard’s Authority’s (ASA) strict standards when they banned a perfume advertisement featuring Dakota Fanning for being “too provocative.” The factors the ASA considered included the length of her dress, the positioning of the perfume bottle, and even her young appearance.

Now, the Israeli government is taking things one step further by banning the use of rail-thin models in local advertisements and publications. One of the requirements in order to work as a model will now include providing up-to-date medical reports, no older than 3 months. Any model with a body mass index of less than 18.5%, the standard set by the World Health Organization, will be prevented from working.

Although critics are say this law discriminates against naturally thin models, this group of women includes less than 5%. The law does not seek to discriminate against individuals, but rather resurrect the fashion industry and the messages that images of fashion models send to consumers. Proponents of the law claim that magazines and other publications promoting underweight models are simultaneously insinuating that these are the unattainable standards of beauty, which can cause psychological damage and lead to eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia. Israel’s government is implementing the necessary measures to not only suggest that healthy is beautiful, but also enforce a reform to the industry today.

Will other countries join in on the effort to makeover the industry?