Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Vetememes "Parody" Raincoat Might Lead to a Lawsuit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ADreamofBlue
    Senior Member
    • Sep 2015
    • 194

    The Vetememes "Parody" Raincoat Might Lead to a Lawsuit

    March 29, 2016 - The Fashion Law

    Just when you may have thought the seemingly unending wave of “parody” garments and accessories had subsided, the fashion press has begun making quite a fuss about the recently-launched brand, Vetememes, a play on the cult Paris-based brand, Vetements. With almost complete uniformity, articles have been quick to label the stand out Vetememes-emblazoned raincoat as a "parody;” everyone from writers at Vogue and Refinery29 to menswear bros at Complex and WGSN have made mention of it. While the aforementioned articles have covered the basics of this new “it” garment, none have considered whether it is actually a “parody” at all and thus, whether or not its creator, Brooklyn-based Davil Tran, will be receiving a threat of impending litigation in the near future.


    Just when you may have thought the seemingly unending wave of “parody” garments and accessories had subsided, the fashion press has begun making quite a fuss about the recently-launched brand, Vetememes, a play on the cult Paris-based brand, Vetements. With almost complete uniformity, articles have been quick to label the stand out Vetememes-emblazoned raincoat as a "parody;” everyone from writers at Vogue and Refinery29 to menswear bros at Complex and WGSN have made mention of it. While the aforementioned articles have covered the basics of this new “it” garment, none have considered whether it is actually a “parody” at all and thus, whether or not its creator, Brooklyn-based Davil Tran, will be receiving a threat of impending litigation in the near future.

    For the uninitiated, “parody" is a term that carries some legal significance to it. In short, it is a fair use defense that may be asserted when a party is faced with a claim of trademark infringement (the unauthorized use of another’s trademark – such as its name or logo – in a way that is likely to confuse consumers in regards to its origin). If a design is deemed to be an effective parody – one that uses the other party’s mark to contribute something new for humorous effect or social commentary – such a finding will allow its creator to dodge liability for infringement.

    But it is notoriously not as simple as making a few changes to some other brand’s logo and calling it a “parody.” In fact, since the issue of likelihood of confusion (the key inquiry in a trademark infringement case), and the defense of parody, in general, are decided on a very factual basis, it is often difficult to predict how a court will rule.

    What we do know is this: Parody and the defense of fair use are held to standards established by legislation and by various case law. For instance, in one famous case (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.), the court held that parodic character refers to the extent to which the subsequent work (the alleged "parody") comments on the original work, and in order to be deemed a parody, a work should provide social benefit, “by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.” Further, as a form of fair use, parodies will also be considered alongside the following factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    With this in mind, such automatic characterization of the Vetememes design as a “parody” is very likely doing its creator a big favor, which he may or may not deserve – especially considering just how similar looking the two parties’ jackets and the corresponding logos are. Instead of labeling the raincoat as illegal (think: trademark infringement or trademark dilution), it is being labeled as a parody, and thus, we are assuming it protected under the doctrine of Fair Use, which very well may not be the case.

    The Good News for Vetememes

    Do not fret my fashion victim friends. There is, however, quite a bit of good news for Mr. Tran and those hoping to get their hands on one of the Vetememes raincoats, which are reportedly going to cost $59. (That’s a lot less than what the real thing, which is currently going for nearly $500 on eBay).

    Primarily, there is a chance that a federal court in New York– where this case would likely be heard – may actually side with Vetememes. While the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), a federal court in Manhattan, has a bit of a history of veto-ing purported parodies, so to speak, a recent ruling bodes well for Vetememes. Early this year, a SDNY court denied Louis Vuitton’s motion for summary judgment in a parody case. (You may recall that Louis Vuitton filed suit against canvas bag company, My Other Bag, in 2014, alleging that MOB created, marketed and sold designs that infringe an array of its trademarks and copyrights. The bags at issue were canvas bags with graphics of famous Louis Vuitton bags on them, along with the text, “My Other Bag...”. MOB responded to the lawsuit by claiming parody).

    In January, the SDNY judge held that MOB’s canvas totes amount to parodies and thus, are not actionable sources of trademark infringement or dilution, a somewhat surprising ruling considering the case law in the SDNY. However, as I indicated previously, parody cases are very much fact-specific, and so, the Louis Vuitton case may not prove to be an automatic homerun for Vetememes if Vetements were to file suit. That being said, the surprising turn of events in the Louis Vuitton v. MOB case is certainly worth noting, as it could prove fruitful is such a case were to arise between Vetements and Vetememes.

    The second bit of good news for Vetememes: The brand it is supposedly commenting on, Vetements, is known for its consistent use of others’ trademarks on some of its best-selling garments. (There are the DHL tees, the Champion-esque sweatshirts, the Titanic ones, the Thrasher ones, etc.). This fact would not only bolster its case of parody, Wthis fact would make it an arguably odd (read: hypocritical?) move for the Vetements team to file a trademark infringement lawsuit when someone does the exact same thing to them. That being said, the Paris-based brand does, in fact, receive authorization from the brands’ whose logos it uses, as we verified in the DHL case. It seems somewhat clear that Vetememes has not done so, which does leave it vulnerable to being on the receiving end of a cease and desist letter from Demna and Guram Gvasalia, the respective creative director and CEO of Vetements.

    Which leads me to my last point: It might actually do more harm than good if Vetements were to file suit against the little guy, Vetememes. With the initiation of legal action comes to very real threat of bad press, to which consumers are not immune. The sheer amount of negative press that Vetements, which despite its large persona is still a very young brand, could potentially face as a result of filing suit must be measured against what it would actually gain from suing the one-man operation known as Vetememes. It is this very reason – tied with the need to craft a brand reputation that is largely free of bad press – that brands are forced to choose their legal battles carefully. It is also why Vetememes will likely be in the clear in this case – parody or not.
    who slips in to my body and whispers to my ghost?
  • mne
    Member
    • Mar 2016
    • 93

    #2
    Great read, and a few very valid points have been made.
    Honestly, at first I haven't even noticed the difference in the word (my attention to detail is questionable at times and my vision is crap ha) but I think this kind of publicity is an advantage to the brand.

    I believe that when they start copying you (parody or not) that means you're doing well for yourself and making enough noise to stand your ground in the industry... so they shouldn't sue...

    It's sounds rich coming from the brand called Vetements, which also got renowned for their use of other logos.

    I think it's funny and maybe it would be refreshing to not take yourself so seriously from time to time. I think it will work in their favour...

    What do you think?

    Comment

    • ProfMonnitoff
      Senior Member
      • Jan 2007
      • 556

      #3
      every aspect of this is so unbelievably stupid
      Originally posted by jogu
      i went out to take garbage out and froze my tits runnin down stairs , think im gonna chill at home tonite . hungry tho anyone have cool ideas on what to order for supper , not pizza tho sick of pizza

      Comment

      • Faust
        kitsch killer
        • Sep 2006
        • 37852

        #4
        Originally posted by ProfMonnitoff View Post
        every aspect of this is so unbelievably stupid
        Yep. Though it would be hilarious if Vetements, a label becoming famous through logo appropriation, would sue Vetememes for logo appropriation. Fashion deserves this round idiocy.
        Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

        StyleZeitgeist Magazine

        Comment

        • Faust
          kitsch killer
          • Sep 2006
          • 37852

          #5
          Originally posted by mne View Post

          What do you think?
          The entire article is pure conjecture. Not sure why they wrote it.
          Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

          StyleZeitgeist Magazine

          Comment

          • SafetyKat
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2014
            • 169

            #6
            I see a solution, Gvasalia needs to feature a parody of the parody. Im thinking over-length l/s tees with "Vetamements" printed down the arms.
            Making money off a pop-up thats making money off of the money you are already making. win-win-win

            Comment

            • Kuat
              Senior Member
              • Nov 2012
              • 136

              #7
              As a law school graduate I have no idea how Vetements get away with it. The whole "fair use" premise is bullshit. I guess none of the trademarks they "borrow" has a big enough hard on for them yet.
              Last edited by Kuat; 06-08-2016, 06:31 PM.

              Comment

              • Law
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2013
                • 513

                #8
                Originally posted by SafetyKat View Post
                I see a solution, Gvasalia needs to feature a parody of the parody. Im thinking over-length l/s tees with "Vetamements" printed down the arms.
                Making money off a pop-up thats making money off of the money you are already making. win-win-win
                "Yo dawg! I heard you like post-ironic hipster brands, so guess what!?, now....."

                Comment

                • _AR
                  Member
                  • Oct 2013
                  • 50

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Kuat View Post
                  As a law school graduate I have no idea how Vetements get away with it. The whole "fair use" premise is bullshit. I guess none of the trademarks they "borrow" has a big enough hard on for them yet.
                  At least some of the brands they definitely requested permission first such as DHL. Maybe that's true for all of them. I think mainstream brands appreciate the association though so unless they start targeting luxury brands I can't imagine much happening from it.

                  Comment

                  • Kuat
                    Senior Member
                    • Nov 2012
                    • 136

                    #10
                    Originally posted by _AR View Post
                    At least some of the brands they definitely requested permission first such as DHL. Maybe that's true for all of them. I think mainstream brands appreciate the association though so unless they start targeting luxury brands I can't imagine much happening from it.
                    Yep, that's probably the only reason they get away with it. Cause the other brands either dont care or actually appreciate the free publicity.

                    Comment

                    • Arkady
                      Senior Member
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 957

                      #11
                      Fair use isn't bullshit at all.

                      If you can conclusively prove the design was created in the spirit of satire you can parody the trademarked material. Generally companies don't engage in this type of thing as the holder of the trademark typically has vast legal resources unavailable to the satirist.

                      Fair use is governed by the concept of transformative application -- i.e. a transformation of the basic material towards perceived public benefit. Parody is the easiest aspect of fair use to hide behind as the only public benefit you have to prove is comedy.

                      Comment

                      • Kuat
                        Senior Member
                        • Nov 2012
                        • 136

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Arkady View Post
                        Fair use isn't bullshit at all.

                        If you can conclusively prove the design was created in the spirit of satire you can parody the trademarked material. Generally companies don't engage in this type of thing as the holder of the trademark typically has vast legal resources unavailable to the satirist.

                        Fair use is governed by the concept of transformative application -- i.e. a transformation of the basic material towards perceived public benefit. Parody is the easiest aspect of fair use to hide behind as the only public benefit you have to prove is comedy.
                        It's would be pretty fucking hard to use Nike sign on your clothes and get away with it, no matter what a satirical genius you were.

                        Fair use is supposed to be about writers taking a part of your book or whatever and use it to write an article or a science paper. Use someone's photos to report news. Etc, etc.

                        But not what Vetements are doing. Like I said, they are getting away with it because all those companies enjoy the free publicity.

                        Comment

                        • Arkady
                          Senior Member
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 957

                          #13
                          That's all mentioned in my post already and not mutually exclusive to strategic cross-promotion.

                          That's also not how law works, fair use is a formal protection for provable intent and does not just cover the two limited examples you gave -- you're confusing the umbrella of fair use with its subordinate parody laws.

                          Neither of which are bullshit but fairly strong 1st amendment failsafes.

                          Comment

                          • SafetyKat
                            Senior Member
                            • Aug 2014
                            • 169

                            #14
                            [QUOTE=Law;517650]"Yo dawg! I heard you like post-ironic hipster brands, so guess what!?, now....."

                            Now you can make fun of the clothes that were making fun of the clothes you were already making fun of!


                            Originally posted by Kuat
                            As a law school graduate I have no idea how Vetements get away with it. The whole "fair use" premise is bullshit. I guess none of the trademarks they "borrow" has a big enough hard on for them yet.
                            Im speculating but Im decently sure that Vetements has some sort of licencing arrangements, at LEAST with Cameron. The V-team They may be superficial rebels but they're not naive businessmen...

                            Comment

                            • SafetyKat
                              Senior Member
                              • Aug 2014
                              • 169

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Arkady View Post
                              That's all mentioned in my post already and not mutually exclusive to strategic cross-promotion.

                              That's also not how law works, fair use is a formal protection for provable intent and does not just cover the two limited examples you gave -- you're confusing the umbrella of fair use with its subordinate parody laws.

                              Neither of which are bullshit but fairly strong 1st amendment failsafes.
                              I agree with you but I think your position can take a quick turn if you're facing a legal team gang rape with a six figure+ penalty as a cherry on top. Look at LV and Nadia Plesner.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X
                              😀
                              🥰
                              🤢
                              😎
                              😡
                              👍
                              👎