This week in fashion law: the good, the bad, and the thoroughly unsurprising

Posted by Charles Colman

No fashion law developments this week warranted an entire post, but there are a number of interesting items to catch up on, in case you missed them the first time around:


The Good



  • Forbes and ShePosts.com each did profiles on the blogger behind criticism and commentary site WTForever21.com, Rachel Kane, who is represented by Charles Colman Law, PLLC, in her dispute with Forever 21.  Though initially taken aback by Forever 21's claims about the website's alleged trademark and copyright infringement, Rachel is now fighting the company's legally baseless threats.


  • The Hangover 2 "copyrighted tattoo" case settles, and the DVD will be released as planned.  Wait, on second thought, intellectual property attorneys were dying to see how the courts would rule on the novel issues in this case.  Move this one to "The Bad."


The Bad



  • The Internet media freaks out over a Nevada court's dictum that in some circumstances, duplication of an entire article may constitute fair use.


  • A Maryland man sues his nail salon for charging men $1 more for manicures.  The plaintiff's attorney likens his client to Rosa Parks.  Cringe.



The Thoroughly Unsurprising


The trademark (and trademark-ey) lawsuits just keep on a-comin':





  • Chicago takes hot dogs really seriously.  Vienna Beef sues a rival for either stealing its 118-year-old recipe OR lying to customers by claiming to be using it.  (FYI, this is called "pleading in the alternative," a/k/a, "I'm not sure exactly what you did, but I know it's something BAD!")



[This post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities.  Any views expressed herein are those of the writer on the particular date of this post, and should not necessarily be attributed to his law firm or its clients.]