Advertisement

May 21, 2013

The Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act: Will Design Protection Be In Vogue in Congress?

On August 6, 2010 Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), introduced a bill entitled the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act ("IDPPPA") (S. 3728), which represents a compromise between the American Apparel & Footwear Association ("AAFA") and the Council of Fashion Designers of America ("CFDA") in an effort to afford protection to American designers for new and original fashion designs.[1]

The new bill, which protects apparel, accessory designs and eyeglass frames, does not require registration of each design, as was the case with the previously unsuccessful Design Piracy Protection Act ("DPPA").[2] The IDPPPA provides for a three-year term of protection to new and original fashion designs. Designs created prior to the enactment of the bill would be dedicated to the public domain. Designers have the burden of pleading the facts underlying the claim with particularity and must establish before trial that the design is wholly original and a "unique, distinguishable, non-trivial and non-utilitarian variation over prior designs." The designer also must establish that: (a) the accused design is "substantially identical;" (b) the defendant's accused design is so similar it is likely to be mistaken with the original protected design and "contains only those differences in construction or design which are merely trivial"; and (c) the defendant had the opportunity to have seen the design before it was released for public distribution. The presence or absence of color or colors or of a pictorial or graphic work imprinted on fabric shall not be considered by the finder of fact in determining whether a particular design is protectable or whether an infringement has occurred. The proposed law limits damages to a maximum fine of $50,000 in the aggregate and $1.00 per copy.

Neither consumers nor retailers may be held liable for inadvertently purchasing or selling unlawful copies. In addition, as with copyright law in general, the independent creation defense affords defendants a complete defense if the defendant can show the design was created independently. In addition, there is an exception for individuals who sew clothing or accessories for personal use or the use of a family member. These changes and modifications to the prior bills introduced were an attempt by Senator Schumer to forge a compromise and balance between advocates for the protection for American designers and retailers and manufacturers which voiced concerns that the previous DPPA would result in an outbreak of costly litigation and a multiplicity of design claims being asserted by competitors. Some argued that the DPPA ultimately would harm competition and make it more difficult for designers to create and protect their original fashion designs.

It remains to be seen how this proposed legislation will fare in Congress and whether the IDPPPA will become a new effective law that protects American fashion designers.

This article was originally posted on Sheppard Mullin's Fashion & Apparel Law Blog, which can be found at www.fashionapparellawblog.com.
 

Copyright © 2013, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

About the Author

Member

Theodore C. Max is a member in the Entertainment, Media and Technology and Intellectual Property practice groups in the New York office, where he focuses on counseling clients on intellectual property issues and litigation. He is co-leader of the firm's Fashion and Apparel team. Mr. Max combines his skill and experience as a trial attorney with his knowledge of copyright, trademark and intellectual property law in servicing the firm's diverse clientele.

212.332.3602

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.