After 16 Years - Hussein Chalayan Returns To The London Fashion Week Show Schedule

British based designer, Hussein Chalayan, who has shown his collections in Paris for over a decade, has returned to the London Fashion Week schedule. The designer presented his collection at Sadlers Wells theatre, a well know home for some of the designers most dramatic shows.

On his reasons for coming back, Chalayan told WWD:

“We left London, as we felt we were making this very big effort…but a lot of people weren’t coming to London at that time. And we felt for business we had to go to Paris – and when we moved to Paris our business grew considerably,” he said. “These days it’s different. You have to remember that digital media, the whole thing, was not as developed as it is now – it was a different life.”

The designer is renowned for his avant-garde fashion designs, but there was no show drama this time - and for Chalayan's return the designer opted for a collection that was both contemporary and wearable, and his presentation focused on displaying the symmetry and the detail of his clothes. A move by Chalayan that might be in light of him striving to avoid being known as a 'conceptual artist,' and to realign his work with commerciality - so as to reach more people.

In the past, the designer expressed in an interview with Vestoj, how he found the term 'limiting.'

"Well, I always wanted my shows to be a cultural experience for the audience, but what ended up happening is that newspapers put, say, my bubble dress on the front page to sell more papers, and it would make people think that I was an ‘artist’, and not interested in making wearable clothes. But actually in the same collection I’d have long tailored coats, and the bubble dress without the bubbles and those garments never got any attention."

He goes onto say that:

"My work is admired by the industry but it doesn’t reach the end consumer. Early in my career I used to think that it was okay to remain exclusive, to be a designer’s designer and perceived as ‘conceptual’. Today I feel differently...I find it very limiting."

"You know, this word conceptual – I hate it now." - Hussein Chalayan

The simplicity of this current collection allows for a much deeper appreciation of the designers clothes. A conscious move by the designer - we believe - to repositioning his brand.

Alexander Wang in Contract Talks With Balenciaga

As soon as Alexander Wang was appointed Creative Director of Balenciaga in December 2012, replacing Nicholas Ghesquière, his appointment was seen as a move to inject the heritage brand with his signature cool. And all seemed to be going well - or at least we thought.  However now two and a half years on, WWD is reporting that the designer is currently in negotiations talks with the fashion label over the renewal of his contract – and rumour has it that his contract may not be renewed at all. 

Market sources estimate Balenciaga generates revenues north of 350 million euros, or $391.5 million at current exchange rates, and is profitable. More than half of the companies revenue intake is from directly owned retail, closing the calender last year with an impressive 90 freestanding stores compared with the three stores it had seven years ago.

Regarding Wang's future, FL&B suspect that the designer's next collection for the Parisian fashion house could be his last. Both sides admit that discussions are taking place but that’s all that is being said, and according to word from WWD, there is much speculation that the two might split. Wang remains under contract with Balenciaga through the Spring 2016 collection, which will show in Paris this fall. After which, Wang's time at Balenciaga is still unconfirmed.

Watch this space for more news.

Italian Authorities Close Down 400+ Websites Selling Fake Luxury Goods

With Milan Fashion Week in full swing, and the world’s top designers showcasing their spring/summer 2016 collections. Italian authorities have closed down over 400 websites selling fake luxury goods including Prada handbags and Patek Philippe watches and launched raids against counterfeiters nationwide.

Italy the epicenter of luxury fashion, has long battled with counterfeiters who churn out low-quality copies of the upmarket clothes and accessories that contribute some 60 billion euros a year to its economy.

Reuters reports, fifteen people who ran websites are being investigated, prosecutors said at a news conference in Rome. The raids were conducted in 11 cities, from Milan in the north to Palermo, the main city on the southern island of Sicily, as part of a broader crackdown on counterfeit goods.

The danger posed by counterfeit goods to the Italian high fashion industry are plentiful, they don't just cut into sales; they sabotage the exclusive image and brand of the company. Luxury goods companies spend millions to create “an aura of exclusivity” around their products, which is difficult to maintain if counterfeit goods unlawfully using a luxury fashion houses trademark become easy to purchase. Which also can have negative effects on the economy…,” police said in a statement.

French Luxury Brands Group Kering Sue Alibaba Over Sale of Counterfeit Products

Alibaba, the largest e-commerce platform in China, has been sued by Parisian luxury and sportswear group Kering (owner's of brands that incluse Gucci, Stella McCartney, Alexander McQueen, Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta & Puma), for the second time in the space of a year.

The pending lawsuit claims that the e-commerce platform "knowingly encourage, assist, and profit from the sale of counterfeits on their online platforms...[and] make it possible for an army of counterfeiters to sell their illegal wares throughout the world,"

The law suit highlights some key points of interest for brand owners with concerns in China, a country that still challenges overseas traders with its huge cultural barriers and notorious connection with intellectual property rights infringement.

The Proceedings

In the case of Gucci America Inc. v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., 15-cv-03784, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) filed in May 2015, Kering claimed that Alibaba were aware of counterfeiting practices taking place on their website, have profited from such practices, and do not take appropriate measures to properly tackle the sale of counterfeit goods. Unofficial “Gucci” bags were available for sale on the website for as little as US$2, and Kering claimed that sellers from Alibaba’s website had shipped counterfeit products as far as New York. Buyers are encouraged to look for counterfeit goods on the website, with search suggestions such as “cucci”, “guchi” and “replica”.

A press statement by Alibaba disclosed that they find it difficult to monitor all the goods being sold on the platform, due to the immense size of the online market, but that they intend to fight the lawsuit. The Chinese company claim that they work closely with many brands, governmental bodies and chambers of commerce worldwide, with positive results for brand owners. They listed their joint work with Nike and Adidas in 2014, which culminated in the removal of many thousands of infringing sellers of counterfeit trainers and other related sports goods from the platform.

Alibaba’s Intellectual Property Rights Protection Policy

Alibaba does have policies in place for the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) for brand owners, and has set up an online “Infringement Claims” system which is similar to those set up by other companies such as eBay and Facebook. Successful use of the system may lead to substantial penalties for infringement, such as the confiscation of security deposits paid by traders, the removal of listings, and a permanent ban from the Alibaba marketplace.

Some statistics released by Alibaba show their attempts to protect IPR holders. In 2013-2014 more than US$160 million was invested in fighting piracy and consumer protection. A task force of more than 2,000 Alibaba employees is currently spearheading a major anti-counterfeiting effort and over 5,000 volunteers assist with daily online surveillance. This has resulted in more than 400 arrests by Chinese authorities and the closure of over 200 online stores selling counterfeit goods worth more than US$7 million.

Problems for Brand Owners

Brand owners feel that Alibaba’s policy does not extend far enough and is far behind the pace of infringers. Having opted to file a lengthy and costly law suit, one may assume that Kering had already filed an unsuccessful complaint via Alibaba’s website, and that they have registered trademark protection in place. Their litigation against Alibaba may also be seen as a strategic and perhaps educative statement to the public against counterfeiting activities of any kind.

Nevertheless, past experience has shown that co-operation with Alibaba can result in the successful of removal of illegal content, as long as the owners strictly follow their online Intellectual Property Rights Protection Policy guidance, and clearly demonstrate the existence and validity of their ownership of the allegedly violated rights.

Be Proactive

IPR owners with an interest in China should work to improve their understanding of the Chinese market, and the mechanisms of the Alibaba website.

If you are filing a complaint via the Alibaba website, it is preferable that the documents are sent in Chinese via a local attorney as according to Alibaba, most of their staff are non-English speakers. A complaint filed in Chinese usually leads to a more rapid resolution. Be ready to provide proof of trademark registrations both in China and worldwide; documents related to your company’s business operations in China might also be relevant.

The existence of trademark registrations in China is not mandatory but has been proven to be essential to the chances of success in these disputes. It is important to note that China adopts the first-to-file principle in trademarks, over any prior user rights. This highlights the importance of having proper legal support in place, by filing trademarks in China and engaging in watching services to monitor third party activity.

Comments

Whilst for Kering, commencing litigation may be a last resort and an attempt to show the marketplace that they will not tolerate counterfeit activity, for brand owners in general, policing the Alibaba website, strictly following Alibaba’s complaint procedure in the event that counterfeits are found for sale online, and having trademark registrations in China might be the safest route to tackle online infringement pending the results of the US litigation.

CASSIO MOSSE is a Contributor to Fashion, Law & Business. Cassio is a Brazilian qualified lawyer and currently reading for a Master of Laws, at Queen Mary, University of London. He holds a position as foreign qualified attorney at EIP Legal in London and is an international correspondent for his law firm, Portugal Murad, where he advises clients in the field of intellectual property, with a particular focus on trade mark law and the fashion industry. He has an extensive background in branding with specific expertise with brand protection strategies.

Luxury Brand Hermès Loses China Trademark Dispute

Fashion house Hermès, a luxury brand based in France, has lost its trademark dispute in China to cancel a trademark similar to the Chinese version of it's name. Hermes registered its English name in China in 1977. However, it never registered its Chinese name as a trademark.

In 1995, Dafeng a menswear company applied to the trademark board to the trademark a similar name for clothing products. The application granted and in 1997, Hermes appealed to the trademark board saying that the registered name, “爱玛仕” (Ai Ma Shi), was similar to the Chinese translation of Hermès, which is “爱马” (Ai Ma). The two names contain very similar Chinese characters with the same pronunciation.

However, the trademark board rejected Hermes' appeal and approved the Chinese company's registration in 2001. In 2009, Hermes once again appealed to the board, saying its Chinese name enjoyed a high reputation around the world and asking the board to cancel the disputed trademark. However, Hermes' application was rejected for a second time in May last year.
Hermes claimed that its Chinese name should be protected as an unregistered well-known trademark in China. It said the disputed trademark was an imitation of its Chinese name and was obtained through "deceptive means.

The court said that most of the evidence presented by Hermes happened after the disputed trademark had been registered. Also, the evidence was mainly media reports about the Chinese name of Hermes in Hong Kong, which fails to prove Hermes was well-known among consumers on the Chinese mainland.
 
For brand extension, you need a clear strategy. The case highlights the disadvantages of not being the first to file for an application of a trademark in overseas territories. Hermes had not secured trademark protection in the region With Chinese consumers being the largest market for purchasers of luxury goods,  as well as being one of the largest market for counterfeit goods, this decision could be particularly damaging for the French luxury brand.