Those Year'S Infringement Cases Are Related To The Luxury Of Paris.

Recently, the founder of Alibaba, Ma Yun, has responded to the selling and selling lawsuits initiated by Kai Yun group with a strong attitude. It seems that there will be a tough battle between Kai Yun group and Alibaba.

However, in the fashion circle, apart from the adverse effects of selling tickets on luxury brands, plagiarism is no doubt a very bad infringement.

Especially when the fashion industry is developing too fast and the idea is strangled, the infringement cases related to big brands are common.

In May 2014, Balenciaga sued the US shoe accessories retailer, Steven Madden Ltd., to copy the design of its best selling handbag style "locomotive bag", which resulted in trademark infringement.

The plagiarism of the Steven Madden Ltd. brand, Steve Madden, owns the same or almost the same shape and design element as the "locomotive bag" launched in 2000, but it sells a lot less than the pricing of the Balenciaga family, which confuses consumers to create the illusion that the Steven Madden Ltd. products are consistent with the Balenciaga, and thus undermine the goodwill, reputation and sales of Balenciaga Brazilian family.

Balenciaga barren's family sought to prohibit Steven Madden Ltd. from selling the infringing products and demanding compensation for the loss.

In May 15th of this year, the Paris luxury giant, Kai Yun group, a well-known luxury brand such as Gucci (Gucci) and Saint Laurent, filed a lawsuit against Ali's selling problem. It is reported that in 2014 July, Kai Yun group had filed a lawsuit against Ali group for the first time on sale.

But 2 weeks after the first lawsuit, the luxury brands quickly revoked the Alibaba complaint and issued a joint statement with Alibaba, saying that the parties have agreed to cooperate with each other to further reduce the counterfeiting activities of the brand under the cloud.

Today, Alibaba is no longer adopting the friendly attitude of the joint declaration.

Lately,

Ma Yun, the founder and chairman of the board of directors, said in an interview that he would never reconcile with Kering SA's opening cloud group. "I would rather lose the lawsuit than lose money, but we will win dignity and respect."

At the same time, Ma Yun Tucao "Gucci Gucci sells so expensive is completely ridiculous, must reflect on their own business model".

It seems that Kai Yun group's infringement lawsuit against Alibaba will be a tough battle, and this path of safeguarding rights has also become longer.

Because of India

Arvind Limited was not printed by Ralph Lauren (Ralph Lauren) group and the latter logo was printed on sale.

In April 2015, Ralph Lauren sued the case of India clothing giant Arvind Limited to settle it by conciliation. Eventually, Arvind Limited paid $3 million 200 thousand in compensation to Ralph Lauren group.

Burberry March 2014 to Korea

The manufacturer SBC Inc. filed a legal suit to prosecute the underwear products of TRY Inc., a brand of SBC Inc., and infringe on its trademark right of classic lattice pattern.

Boboli wants to seek the prohibition order of the court to prohibit the production and sale of infringing products, and asks SBC Inc. to compensate him one hundred million yuan, which is not the first infringement lawsuit filed by boblie in Korea.

Since 2011, the brand has filed ten trademark infringement lawsuits in South Korea and won all the cases. Among them, LG Fashion Group., a Korean men's suit manufacturer, was awarded a compensation of 30 million won.

Generally speaking, most luxury brands are sued by other plaintiffs in the plaintiff's identity, but this does not mean that luxury brands will not sit on the dock.

In June 2014, New York shoe manufacturer LVL XIII Brands told Louis Weedon (Louis Vuitton) to court that the latter's 2014 spring and summer shoes were plagiarized from LVL XIII Brands founder Antonio Brown, who said he was very angry with Louis Louis Weedon. He said he respected Louis Weedon's brand very much. But because of Louis Weedon's plagiarism tort, he was scolded for being a copycat.

In addition, in 2009, LV was also taken to court by New Balance. New Balance said LV's Minstrel sneakers were copied from New Balance's New New 574.

After reconciliation, LV no longer sold the product.