Seafolly legal win

NATIONAL: Australian fashion brands are becoming more aggressive when it comes to protecting their trademarks and unique designs, according to legal experts.

Patents and trademarks office IP Australia recorded 1803 trade mark oppositions during 2008/09, up from 1712 the previous year.

Choy Lawyers principal Trevor Choy, who was also a member of the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, believes a sizeable portion of these complaints applies to fashion brands.

Choy said tough economic conditions had seen new players attempt to register marks similar to their high-profile competitors.

“There is a little bit of predatory branding, where people have thought this is a sucessful brand, so instead of coming up with something completely original, they sail closer to what is there,” he said.

Increased competition meant fashion brands now scrutinised new trademark applications more thoroughly, with the same name, logo and slogan reviewed. The number of design infrigement complaints was also gathering strength, Choy said.

As first reported by ragtrader.com.au, swimwear giant Seafolly is the latest Australian fashion player to win a copyright battle against a low-priced competitor.

The company issued proceedings against clothing supplier Fastlane Australia and its director David Neate over prints featured in its ‘Cherry Lane’ and ‘Urban Oasis’ branded garments. 

Fastlane Australia consented to declarations it had infringed Seafolly’s copyright and to final injunctions restraining it from – among other provisions – reproducing, manufacturing, advertising, marketing or promoting the two prints in question.

Middletons partner Tony Watson, who acted for Seafolly in the proceeding, said this would not be the first or last time the swimwear brand takes its battle to court.

“By not taking action, would-be copyists can take these original designs without having to incur the significant design costs that are incurred by the likes of Seafolly in coming up with these innovative designs,” he said.

However, Choy said smaller brands would be powerless in a similar situation, with legal costs of up to $200,000 proving out of reach or not worth the amount generated in sales.