The allure of designer handbags has long attracted counterfeiters, prompting luxury brands to employ a multi-faceted approach to intellectual property protection, according to insights from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) magazine.
The global handbag market, projected to reach 68.31 billion dollars this year according to Statista, exemplifies the fusion of fashion, celebrity influence and intellectual property rights. Recent events, such as the viral success of Marc Ozias’s Jolene bag after being featured by Beyoncé, underscore the transformative power of social media and star endorsement in propelling emerging designers to instant fame, WIPO noted. This phenomenon, reminiscent of Jacquemus’s rise with the mini Chiquito bag, highlights the evolving landscape where digital influence can rapidly elevate niche products to coveted status symbols.
From Louis Vuitton’s zealous defence of its iconic monogram to Hermès’ successful litigation against digital infringements, established houses are leveraging trademarks, copyrights and even patents to safeguard their creations. The legal landscape is equally dynamic, with landmark cases redefining the parameters of confusion and dilution in trademark law. As the industry grapples with the dual challenges of preserving brand integrity and capitalising on digital-era opportunities, the interplay between fashion innovation and legal protection continues to shape the trajectory of luxury accessories.
Last week, The Fashion Law reported that a Chinese company attempting to trademark a tote bag design that looks very similar to a popular Marc Jacobs bag has so far been unsuccessful. The bag, emblazoned with “THE TOTE BAG”, saw the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) respond that the company cannot claim exclusive rights to the phrase because it simply describes what the product is and is too general to distinguish their product from other tote bags. The official explained that since the company is selling actual tote bags, they cannot trademark a phrase that merely states what the product is.
This pushback from the USPTO is not surprising, The Fashion Law says, as it is meant to prevent companies from unfairly monopolising common terms or designs, especially when they are copying another brand’s popular product.