Cutting Edge – News Updates
Fashion and Government Need Closer Ties, Maloney Says
WWD
WWD reports on Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney’s call for a new dedicated fashion industry lobby to address the cutting-edge issues raised at the Fashion Law Institute’s 7th Annual Symposium, Fashion Revolutions:
Maloney’s solution: an official fashion industry lobby.
“You’ve got to start an organization that represents all of you and that represents your interests because you’re artists, you’re working all the time, you don’t have time to go to Washington D.C. and tell us,” Maloney said.
Without a lobby and a consensus on some core priorities, Maloney said the fashion industry faces an uphill battle, including with the Garment District rezoning.
“If you don’t become [a lobby] and fight for it, you’re fighting against real estate companies that have billions and billions of dollars and you’re going to lose.”
Puma, United, and Dress Code Trends
New York Times
Vanessa Friedman discusses the changing dress code climate with Professor Scafidi in her latest article for the New York Times.
That tension has always existed, but in the past, the employer has generally won — at least when an individual was acting under the aegis of a brand, or on its behalf. Last year, however, when another dress code brouhaha broke out — this one about a temporary worker in Britain who was sent home for refusing to wear high heels — Susan Scafidi, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and the founder of the Fashion Law Institute, told me that the pendulum had begun to swing the other way.
As an example, she pointed out that the New York City Commission on Human Rights published new guidelines in December 2015 for the municipal law that prohibited “enforcing dress codes, uniforms, and grooming standards that impose different requirements based on sex or gender” (e.g. If women have to wear heels, so do men).
Is Your Dress Code Illegal?
United’s defense of refusing to board certain passengers who are not properly clothed is just the latest in a series of dress-code dust-ups. Professor Scafidi’s new Think Tank column for WWD explains the changing legal and social environment for attempts to regulate attire.
Today, law is leading the charge against compulsory conformity in workplace dress, at least in key jurisdictions — but even many fashion companies remain unaware of the new rules. Gender-specific dress codes, for example, are prohibited in New York City. A company could theoretically require dresses and heels for female employees, but it would have to do the same for male employees.
Mandatory uniforms are permissible, but only if there are no restrictions on which items are worn by men and which by women. After a discussion of this policy at the annual Fashion Law Institute symposium last year, over 20 well-known fashion brands reported that they had changed their dress codes, and others continue to follow suit.
Brexit Begins
What’s next for the global fashion industry now that the UK has officially set in motion its departure from the EU? Our 7th Annual Symposium on Friday, March 31 will get the scoop straight from London — and of course, leading experts in the US!
SCOTUS: Expressions Hair Design’s Free Speech
Expressions Hair Design fought the law — and won, at least for now. The Supreme Court has weighed in on the New York statute prohibiting businesses from advertising a mark-up for credit-card fees and found that it did indeed regulate free speech. But does that mean the law is unconstitutional?
Not necessarily. The full opinion is below; note not only that the case is now remanded for consideration of the law’s constitutionality, but that the Court also suggests in a footnote that the law might have been found unconstitutional on other than free speech grounds if the argument had been raised earlier.
Supreme Court Copyright Ruling Could Be a Coup for Fashion
WWD
WWD offers an overview of reactions to the case.
Susan Scafidi, the director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Law School which filed an amicus brief with the high court in support of Varsity, said the ruling is “a clear victory for team copyright” and the fashion industry at large, which has long relied on copyrights for unique fabric and surface designs.
Go team! US Supreme Court upholds patent for cheerleader garb
Yahoo News
OK, so it’s really copyright, but the article gets it right!
“This case is a huge victory for the fashion industry, which has relied on protection for fabric prints and other surface designs for the last-half century and can continue to do so,” said Susan Scafidi, founder of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University, who advised Varsity in this legal battle.
Etats-Unis : la justice redéfinit le droit d’auteur du secteur textile
Agence France Press
A French take on the Supreme Court’s ruling Star Athletica v. Varsity and what it means for la mode, not to mention un costume de pom-pom girl:
« C’est une victoire majeure pour l’industrie de la mode, qui depuis un demi-siècle se fonde sur la protection des imprimés sur les tissus et les autres designs de surface, et peut continuer à compter là-dessus », s’est félicitée Susan Scafidi, fondatrice du Fashion Law Institute à l’université de Fordham, qui a conseillé Varsity dans cette bataille judiciaire.
Supreme Court: Iconic American cheerleading uniform design protected by copyright
Quartz.com
For more of Quartz’ take on the Supreme Court’ opinion in Star Athletica v. Varsity, click here.
A number of fashion brands, designers, and industry groups—including the Fashion Law Institute, Narciso Rodriguez, Proenza Schouler, and the Council of Fashion Designers of America—filed amicus briefs in support of Varsity Brands, and to represent the fashion industry’s concern that a ruling in favor of Star Athletica would be a threat to designers’ ability to protect their designs.
Susan Scafidi, a professor at Fordham University and founder of the Fashion Law Institute, provided expert advice in the trial when the case was still at the District Court level and says this should not have been an “enormous, Supreme Court-worthy case garnering international attention.”
The Supreme Court ruling won’t change anything for designers, she says, but does preserve the little protection they have come to rely on for their designs. “The fashion industry barely has protection over fabric prints, lace patterns, jewelry, belt buckles, or handbag clasps,” says Scafidi. That’s because designers cannot copyright the cut or shape of three-dimensional garments in the US. “Copying is rampant and protection is limited,” says Scafidi, “so the industry needs to hold onto the little protection it does have to prevent design piracy.”
Fashion Law Institute, Tiffany, & Louboutin on trade dress dispute
Converse v. ITC
Should exclusivity of use be required for trade dress? The Fashion Law Institute, Tiffany & Co., and Christian Louboutin address this issue in their Federal Circuit amici curiae brief in Converse v. ITC. From WWD:
The brief said the ITC “inaccurately” suggested in its underlying decision that without a complete exclusivity of use, secondary meaning cannot be established.
“This view overemphasizes the weight to be given to the absence of substantial exclusivity when assessing secondary meaning,” the parties argued in their brief. “Contrary to the commission’s approach, secondary meaning can and does exist in the absence of exclusivity of use. Indeed, exclusivity of use is not a prerequisite to obtaining and holding a valid trademark, as it might be in other areas of intellectual property law.”
Instead, the amici said exclusivity should be characterized as “just one of many indirect tools that can help answer the secondary meaning question — whether the buying public associates a mark with a single source.”