In a case filed by fabric company United Fabrics alleging copyright infringement against Macys and its vendors, the situation looked dire when the district court judge dismissed the case sua sponte, finding that the copyright registration for the design at issue was invalid. Undaunted by this setback, Doniger / Burroughs partner Scott Burroughs appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before a panel of three appellate judges, Mr. Burroughs pleaded his client’s case, noting that Macys’ attorneys had urged a misapplication of the law, and there was no evidence or precedent to support the district court decision.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was persuaded by Mr. Burroughs’ argument, finding unanimously in favor of his client, and reinstating the case. Back at the district court level, Mr. Burroughs requested a renewed ruling on the Motion for Summary judgment that had previously been denied at the same time the case was dismissed. The judge agreed, and partially granted the motion.

As the Doniger / Burroughs trial team was preparing the matter for the jury, more than two and a half years after the case had been filed, and just one day before trial was set to commence, Macys settled, agreeing to pay a substantial six-figure sum to avoid the jury trial.

And, the blogs take note:

http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2011/07/forever_21_faces_another_copyr.html

http://ecosalon.com/fast-fashion-giant-forever-21-steals-sustainable-label-feral-childes-design/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Ecosalon+%28EcoSalon+Main+Feed%29

http://consumerist.com/2011/07/forever-21-sued-again-for-allegedly-swiping-a-textile-design.html

http://jezebel.com/5821563/forever-21-gets-sued-for-copying–again

http://www.ecouterre.com/feral-childe-slaps-forever-21-with-copyright-infringement-lawsuit/

http://www.fashion-incubator.com/archive/forever-21-sued-by-feral-childe/

http://kaightnyc.blogspot.com/2011/07/support-feral-childe-not-forever21.html

http://fashionablyjust.com/2011/07/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black-forever-21-busted-for-copyright-infringement/

http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-forever-21-rips-off-indie-designers-print/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/07/is-forever-21-an-eco-fashion-design-thief-photos.php

http://www.ecouterre.com/feral-childe-slaps-forever-21-with-copyright-infringement-lawsuit/feral-childe-forever-21-1/

http://www.emcblue.com/blog/2011/07/forever-21-in-another-copyright-infringement-scandal/

http://la.racked.com/archives/2011/07/18/forever21_knocks_off_ad_infinitum.php

Mr. Burroughs is defending fashion blogger Rachel Kane in connection with claims of copyright and trademark leveled at her by “fast-fashion” retailer Forever 21. All of the scoop is here: Forbes Article – Doniger / Burroughs – Forever 21

Doniger / Burroughs client, J. Steger, a high-end rock-inspired clothing line, achieved a total victory in a copyright infringement case filed against retailer Elite and its vendor Smash Men’s, Inc.  On April 18, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered judgment ruling that Smash Men’s willfully violated an injunction granted in September 2009, which barred it from selling knock-off garments bearing J. Steger artwork. 

            In 2009, after the release of its premiere line, J. Steger discovered knock-offs of its original designs on hoodies and jackets sold at Planet Funk retail stores.  After J. Steger’s filing of its first lawsuit, the Court entered a judgment against Planet Funk and Smash Men’s for copyright infringement.  However, less than one year later, J. Steger found infringing shirts with the “Smash” label selling in different retail stores and online. 

J. Steger filed its second lawsuit in 2010, which resulted in a jury finding that Smash Men’s was liable for willful infringement in violation of the 2009 injunction, and awarding $40,750 in statutory damages.  Additionally, this Court awarded J. Steger its attorney fees in the amount of $81, 707.50. 

“This ruling is especially important because the defendants knew they were selling apparel that should have been destroyed after the first case,” said attorney Regina Yeh. “We’re grateful to the jurors for their service, and for protecting the integrity of our client’s artwork.”