Industry Standard: Lssey Miyake Rink Bag Has Been Won By Crazy Copying.

Issey Miyake, Japan's designer brand, won a Shanzhai battle for its most popular package of Bao Bao. Last month, Lssey Miyake filed a lawsuit against local company Largu in Japan on the grounds of unfair competition. The Avancer package, which began in 2016, looks almost the same as the Bao Bao series.

Largu was sentenced by the Tokyo district court to permanently prohibit the manufacture and sale of any plagiarized Bao Bao products and to pay nearly $700 thousand in damages to Lssey Miyake.

Lssey Miyake (left) and Largu products (right)

Bao Bao series bag was launched as the Pleats Please Issey Miyake sub line in 2000, and has always been one of the hottest bags in the fashion industry. It has a high degree of recognition. The designer integrates his understanding of architecture into the control of PVC materials and fabrics. The triangular rhombus of all over the package can display various structures and shapes according to the content, static and dynamic state.

Since its appearance, this bag has been continuously adding various colors and styles to keep its heat in the market. Starting from the autumn and winter series in 2010, Bao Bao has become an independent brand characterized by engineering distance.

But at the same time, Tempe Brickhil, vice president of Lssey Miyake Europe, told the Fashion Law that it is also one of the most plagiarized packages in the world.

Bao Bao series is not easy to protect rights. Because its main business is "industrial design", it will be difficult to get protection in fashion design in some cases. For example, in the legal dispute between Lssey Miyake and Largu, although the court finally judged Lssey Miyake to win according to unfair competition, it still refused to support its claim for copyright infringement. The Bao Bao series was more suitable for protection in industrial design category.

However, the reason for Lssey Miyake's "unfair competition" prosecution has hit the pain spot of Shanzhai products, pointing out that the latter product "may be mistaken and misunderstood as Lssey Miyake's product".

Jiang Mei, a trademark lawyer in Tokyo, told the Fashion Law that the court dismissed the Largu company's Refutation reasons for the difference in size and shape between the triangular elements in assessing the possibility of confusion between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court held that although the individual triangles were different, Largu's package produced the same visual effect as Lssey Miyake package as a whole.

Brickhil said Lssey Miyake has been cracking down on piracy. From the Japanese and US retailers to Amazon and other online platforms, Lssey Miyake will be concerned if there is a Shanzhai Bao Bao.

Maintaining intellectual property rights is one of the most difficult problems in the fashion industry. For the infringed brands, because the rights protection objects are too scattered and difficult to decide, safeguarding rights requires a lot of money and time, but now many brands can see that they are not afraid of trouble and have raised their legal weapons.

In May of this year, Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit against BELLE's two international subsidiary. It said that it started selling a commodity that copied its own Archlignt shoes in 2018, which violated the copyright of Louis Vuitton Archlight shoes in July 2018.

Louis Vuitton said that Archlignt sneakers have gained wide popularity in China and the global market. Consumers will naturally associate the design of this shoe with the Louis Vuitton brand, while BELLE international and Lizhong shoes industries have plagiarized Archlignt shoes and sold them without authorization.

In addition, Louis Vuitton also said Archlignt sneakers enjoy a good reputation all over the world. BELLE's international low quality imitations will damage the reputation of Louis Vuitton brand.

Before that, disputes between Italy Chao Supreme Italia and New York Supreme were also booming in China.

Supreme Italia grabbed the front of Supreme and opened several stores in China. Supreme brand owner of intellectual property, the four chapter of American Chapter Chapter 4, has sought administrative protection to Chinese authorities against the unfair competition of its parent company IBF and its associated companies.