This victory is over 106 different counterfeiters operating out of China, each deemed to owe $8.15 million in damages and each is held liable for four counts of willful trademark counterfeiting and a fifth charge of copyright infringement. The counterfeiting and infringement were with respect to the company’s brand, and several design details including the pocket design. There were a total of 282 sites that True Religion set its sights on, operating under names like truereligionjeansweb.com and cheapjeansoutlet.com. Along with the money damages, these sites were disabled and the domain names were transferred to True Religion.

So far, it seems like True Religion came away with everything including the kitchen sink, however, it is likely to face difficulties in collecting on the damages due to the fact that many of the defendants have taken measures to remain unknown. Yet, Deborah Graves, secretary and general counsel for True Religion, remains positive and says, “we’re pleased that we were able to send a message to people operating on the fringes of the electronic frontier. And it’s also important to us that we don’t have U.S. consumers, who were the targets of these sites, being duped because they wanted our brand.” She goes on to say, “people can go back and attempt to get started again, but with a judgment against them, it’s going to be a lot harder to find registries that are willing to touch them.”

The message sent by True Religion, whether it collects on the money damages or not, rings loud and clear and yet it seems unlikely that the counterfeiters will take away the intended message.

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.

Importers and brands entering the Chinese cosmetic market face major challenges, specifically those international brands that have abandoned animal testing. Cosmetic brands must balance their ideals and policy to refrain from animal testing, against potential growth and market share. China’s massive consumption and distribution seem almost endless, and is attractive to most any international fashion house, cosmetics brand, and other luxury brands.

Three major players in the cosmetics market face a class-action lawsuit in California for, amongst other things, false advertising. After marketing their brands as free from animal testing, Mary Kay, Estee Lauder, and Avon, are accused of doing just the opposite- in order to enter the Chinese market. Each brand had previously qualified for PETA’s “Do Not Test” list, certifying that these brands abstain from testing products on cosmetics.

Currently, any brand wishing to import cosmetics into China must adhere to strict chemical and product testing requirements, which often require testing on animals. Registration and licensing procedures require various tests on any compound or ingredient that has not been previously released in China. Estee Lauder, in defense of their actions, has a long history and stance against animal testing, claiming to allow it only when the law requires, and  in this case, to enter the Chinese market.

Finding safe and feasible alternative procedures to animal testing the best way to phase out animal testing programs worldwide. Although there was a time when human and animal testing was necessary, significant advances in technology have produced safe and alternative methods for testing the safety of products like cosmetics. For many countries, these alternative tests may seem an unlikely replacement as the cost/benefit analysis in their culture does not favor new alternatives.

Unlike the European Union and the United States, China has not shifted away from testing of compounds in cosmetics on animals. One expert, Mr. James of Laboratory Animal Services Centre of the Chinese University in Hong Kong, suggests that a higher standard should be set for consumer products that are not necessary to daily life.

In the US, for example, pharmaceuticals are often subject to animal testing, while other industries are subject to alternative tests. European Regulations will phase out any animal testing in the industry by March 2013, China’s proposed alternative testing scheme has no definite effective date and no actual change in the foreseeable future.

So what can your brand do? Well, to avoid the problems that Estee Lauder, Avon, and Mary Kay have run into, you might want to clarify your testing procedures and company policy. If you test to enter certain markets, you may want to disclaim that you do not test on animals unless absolutely necessary. Or sacrifice your slice of the Chinese cosmetic market until such time as alternatives are the standard method of testing. Lastly, you can restrict your products to those already approved for cosmetic sales in China.

We can all agree that mistreatment of animals is wrong, but at what cost do we allow dangerous and untested products to enter a consumer market?

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.”

As the USPTO evaluated the application, their search for prior art resulted in Borat’s neon green one-piece. The USPTO was not impressed and they even included a diagram to explain the similarities between Quinn’s proposed invention and Borat’s swimsuit. Before filing a patent, the key is to make sure the invention was not known or used by others in this country or a foreign country. The USPTO makes it clear that “even if the invention is not exactly shown by prior art, the invention must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention.”

So what is considered prior art? If the USPTO can reference trivial things such as Borat’s swimwear, does that mean essentially anything can be prior art? Possibly. Patent examiners do not just look at past patents to find reasons for rejection. According to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2125 Drawings as Prior Art, “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed… The origin of the drawing is immaterial… The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Thus, anything can be considered prior art if it precedes a claimed invention and this case demonstrates that the USPTO can look just about anywhere for prior art.

While it seems like Quinn is out luck, he recently made a request for an extension of time to respond to the non-final rejection. I am not sure what exactly he will come up with to distinguish his apparatus from Borat’s apparel, but I suggest that the patent applicant conduct a search of all previous public disclosures before he responds. After all, the USPTO does say search of “prior art including, but not limited to, previously patented inventions in the U.S. should be conducted to determine if your invention has been publicly disclosed and thus is not patentable.” Who knew the phrase “but not limited to” could refer to a movie like Borat?

Fulton is seeking the rights to the phrases “I am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon,” the oft-used cries of supporters of Martin and his family. Fulton’s attorney claims she has no plans to profit off of the marks herself.

17-year-old Martin was shot and killed by a 28-year-old Florida neighborhood watch captain who is claiming self-defense.

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.

According to Coach’s deputy general counsel Nancy Axilrod, “Coach is exceedingly pleased with the jury’s verdict in Tennessee against the Third Street Flea Market and its operator.” She tells WWD, “The Third Street Flea Market case illustrates Coach’s commitment to enforcing its intellectual property rights. This case should serve as a warning to all those who traffic in counterfeit Coach goods, or who tolerate such activity on their premises, that: we will find you; we will sue you; and we will win.”

As previously mentioned, Coach launched an aggressive offensive against counterfeiting nearly four years ago. The program, dubbed Operation Turnlock, has a zero-tolerance policy with regards to companies and individuals who are involved in the distribution or sale of counterfeit goods. This week’s judgment which is one of Coach’s largest settlements, marks another victory for the brand in protecting their intellectual property rights.

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.

According to TMZ, A&F is refuting the accusations and has taken action to shut down the website. The faux site was under the URL www.abercrombie-and-fitchoutlet.com, registered in China, and sold A&F knock-offs. Consumers should have noticed the domain name as their first red flag. I mean, it is a ridiculously long URL after all. A&F could bring a lawsuit for trademark infringement within the domain name as well as the knock-off clothing. If the average consumer thought this was a legitimate A&F outlet site, consumer confusion can be a strong argument for the retail store. The similar domain name may have caused customers to buy different goods than what they intended to buy. This causes customers to receive clothing that are much inferior to A&F’s famous, casual-luxury clothing.

A&F’s trademark name is distinctive and A&F could argue that they are taking reasonable steps to protect its trademark by shutting down the fake website. But need I mention that there is still the strange problem of fake Abercrombie websites sprawled across the internet? It’s odd because I thought there were jobs that policed fraudulent sites and that ensured defamatory content would be caught before causing harm to the company’s reputation. Who knows but the company’s payroll team.

I can’t help but wonder if A&F could sue the software company, Kingsoft Corp, that generated the racial slur as a translation for the color “dark brown.” Would it be enough for Kingsoft to say this was an honest mistake or should they be held liable for this negligent glitch?

In spite of numerous, outrageous Facebook posts and Tweets that demanded an apology, A&F finally responded to the controversy. “We do not condone racist language,” said an A&F rep to TMZ. “This is a counterfeit website and we have initiated legal proceedings to shut it down.”

While A&F still fears that this media blitz and bad press can have a detrimental effect on its image, the elitist company is not afraid to defend its name and continue to shed light on their nonracial and nondiscriminatory attitudes.

The flyer makes use of the traditional Louis Vuitton pattern while substituting in the trademark and copyright symbols. On February 29^th, Louis Vuitton’s counsel, Michael Pantalony, sent a cease and desist letter to Dean Michael Fitts of Penn Law to express “concerns over the unauthorized use of our trademarks” to promote the event. Mr. Pantalony goes on to say he “was dismayed to learn that the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Penn Intellectual Property Group had misappropriated and modified the LV Trademarks and Toile Monogram as the background for its invitation and poster.” The letter concludes with hopes that because the issue had been brought to light, the PIPG would discontinue use of the flyer.

Apparently the Associate Dean responded via email saying PIPG would stop using the flyer. However, on March 2^nd Robert Firestone, who represents Penn Law, responded to Mr. Pantalony indicating the flyer would continue being used. Mr. Firestone stated, “PIPG does not agree that the artwork on its poster and invitation infringes any of Louis Vuitton’s trademarks, nor does it dilute any of those trademarks.” The response goes on to state, “there is no likelihood of confusion that Louis Vuitton sponsored or is associated with PIPG’s annual educational symposium.” Mr. Firestone discusses the relevant laws in his response, which led to his conclusion that PIPG could continue using the flyer without violating any of Louis Vuitton’s trademark rights.

The whole issue is moot after the event on March 20^th because the flyer will no longer be used, so it will be interesting to see if there are any additions to the story.

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.

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?