Wanna Get Lucky?

Lucky brand jeans button 300x225 Wanna Get Lucky?Widely hailed as the best jeans in the kingdom of denim by fashionistas everywhere, Lucky Brand jeans fell victim to its own overripe image this week in its trademark infringement case against Miami-based Marcel Fashion Group, which sells the GET LUCKY line of apparel.

Following a five day jury trial in the Southern District of New York, the jurors handed down a verdict finding that aggrieved plaintiff Lucky Brand had in fact stolen its luck, and infringed on Marcel’s GET LUCKY trademark. Branding Lucky with a permanent bad actor stamp, the jury found that Lucky had acted wantonly and awarded punitive damages of $280,000 against it. Given that there was clear evidence that Marcel had registered and used the trademark GET LUCKY years before Lucky Brand was even formed, one has to wonder what Lucky’s lawyers were thinking in bringing the action. Putting aside the hubris induced by long-term exposure to the rarefied air of haute couture, one has to give serious consideration to the possibility that their jeans — fashionably cut a size too small — simply cut off circulation to their heads. This seems eminently reasonable, particularly since the verdict follows hot on the heels of last year’s sanction award against Lucky for repeated discovery violations.

While it’s still a toss up whether Lucky is going to try its luck with the court of appeals, rest assured that Lucky Brand jeans will still be available at your local outlet. If you hurry, you might get lucky and find a size that fits.

4

4 comments

  1. Pete Salsich says:

    The apparel industry just keeps giving and giving when it comes to misguided trademark infringement lawsuits! Lucky Brand’s litigation strategy (and behavior) makes The North Face look like a model of decorum and reasonableness. Did Lucky Brand assert any defenses or justifications for being a junior infringer in the role of an infringement plaintiff?

  2. It’s hard to figure out what they were thinking in light of the fact that a 2003 settlement agreement between the two companies barred Lucky from using the GET LUCKY mark. Apparently they tried to get tricky by using it in connection with perfume and women’s tee shirts, presumably based on counsel’s advice that it didn’t violate the settlement agreement. However, last year the court specifically found that Lucky Brand’s admitted advertising and promotion of fragrances using Defendants’ GET LUCKY trademark constituted a breach of Section 7 of the 2003 Settlement Agreement, which makes one wonder what they thought they would gain by taking this to trial rather than quietly settling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>