Your browser is no longer supported. For the best experience of this website, please upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

G-whizz, IP law isn’t half complicated

The Guess v Gucci fiasco has brought into question judges’ judgements

The Gucci v Guess lawsuit that rumbled on for 4 years finally concludes

Watching a repeat of the popular TV panel show QI the other night, I was quite interested to learn about the hypothetical characters English lawyers use to test the validity of a claim in court. From a ‘precocious toddler’ and a ‘fertile octogenarian’ to a ‘moron in a hurry’, they exist to provide a handy ‘man on the street’ sense check. Those involved in the 4-year long cases that were resolved this week between Gucci and Guess, might have come to a conclusion much quicker if either New York or Milanese courts had the benefit of these stereotypes – after all, even a moron in a hurry could see the similarities between the products in question.

One thing seemingly overlooked in this particular disagreement is the difference between owning the rights to the letter G and owning the rights to a type of design. Understandably trademarking a letter, number, cheese and pickle sandwich or the entire sky in any form is pretty unreasonable and not allowed. Christian Louboutin somehow managed to trademark a colour (when applied to the sole of a shoe) during its epic case against YSL but on the whole these attempts don’t get off the ground.

It’s where the idea or design is more intangible that the problems occur. When does ‘inspired by’ become copying and copying become fakery? We all know about the sometimes dodgy, sometimes pretty impressive, sometimes downright hilarious fakes that flood the bustling markets of the Far East that are a nuisance, but when one big player is so obviously ‘inspired by’ another, there should be some provision in law to quickly assess any claim.

Stealing ideas is as bad as stealing identities, but without a law degree on such things, the answers aren’t easy to come by. But even if such disputes are too complex to judge on with the current legal system, even a moron in a hurry can see that the copiers should at the very least be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.