Gucci vs. Guess

Copying has become quite common in today’s times, and especially when a lower priced product or a small company imitates an expensive brand. However, a trademark infringement fight between two top most fashion brands is not something that we usually see.

Back in 2009, Gucci sued Guess for trademark infringement over the stylized initial “G”. The proceedings of the case started before the US district court in Manhattan on Thursday (5’th April 2012) after 3 years and is expected to remain in federal court for weeks. This lawsuit is the biggest fashion fight of its kind since Christian Louboutin sued Yves Saint Laurent over his trademarked red soles. “Gucci” is a registered trademark since 1969 and the brand was first used in 1953.  Guess has been accused of specifically ripping off four designs: Gucci’s green and red stripe; the interlocking “G” pattern; the square “G” and the brand name’s delicate script font.  Gucci has been in apparel business for more than 40 years and extremely popular and one of the most luxurious brands all over the world. Here in this case, the plaintiff does not need to prove the well-known stature of the trademark and any kind of dilution of the trademark Gucci will affect its brand value.

Since Gucci is such an established name, it is fair to assume that people are likely to get confused over the logo “G”. When a prudent person looks at a product from both the two brands with their respective logo on it, it’s difficult to differentiate between the two. The most important argument and allegation in this case is that Guess has blatantly copied the shoe design from Gucci and here in this case Guess could be in trouble.  There is a likelihood of confusion and dilution of the trade mark Gucci and it can be assumed that Guess has designed or copied the logo and design of Gucci to confuse the consumers.

However, the CEO of Guess Inc.  claims that Gucci has taken too long to file a law suit. The counsel for Guess claimed that Gucci cannot claim infringement because the company “sat on its rights” for at least seven years before deciding to sue.

According to Bloomberg Business week reports, Gucci has claimed $124 million in damages for $221 million worth of Guess product infringements.

It’s a battle of two heavyweight designer luxury companies and it’s interesting to know that now companies are ready to spend millions of Dollar in litigation to protect their Trade Marks. It will be interesting to read the final outcome of the case and what the Hon’ble US court decides in this matter. Meanwhile, one can check the design of both the shoes and decide how much similarity is there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image Source: www.telegraph.uk

About the Author: Mr. Kumar Janmejay, Trade Mark Attorney at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at: Kumar@khuranaandkhurana.com

 

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010