Recently Coach (handbags) was awarded 44 million dollars by the Federal Court in Manhattan. The involved counterfeit goods. The story has received huge publicity on both sides of the Atlantic. Judge McMahon wrote an articulate stinging decision granting summary judgment (a win without the need of a trial) to Coach along with an eye popping award of money.
NOT reported in the press or media is that one defendant defaulted and that the other never hired an attorney. The decision was rendered – in effect – with the loser(s) never having had an attorney in the case. There are essentially no opposition papers submitted on the law. The defendant states that she couldn’t afford a lawyer and for all intents and purposes, she is the wrong person/company being sued
So long story short, the Judge wrote a decision based on the legal arguments of one side only. Headline remains attention getting. The back-story will remain unknown to 99% of those who read or hear about the case.
#1 by Matt Timmons on April 27, 2013 - 5:30 pm
Not sure if this is related, but I see these clowns all the time in Herald Square selling knock-off Coach or Luis Vuitton handbags on the sidewalk for $25. Some of them even have the balls to sell ’em up on 48th and 5th right near the actual stores- a huge pile of 50-60 fake handbags. Sometimes there’s a bust and these guys scatter like rats, but most of the time they sell all night long and NYPD doesn’t care. Don’t these guys at least have to get a permit to obstruct the sidewalk and sell stuff? How does it work that they can sell counterfeit products right there on the street and no one stops them 95% of the time?
#2 by Edward C. Greenberg on April 29, 2013 - 5:07 pm
To be super short:
These companies spend tons of money policing their brands and even with the assistance of local law enforcement can’t keep up. Remember all law enforcement is selective. So in major cities selling bogus goods does not get the attention of cops already busy with robberies, murders, terrorism patrols, etc.
For those interested in these fashion cases there have been excellent articles and pieces on the web and TV about NY’s Chinatown which is a hotbed for selling these goods. Tourists buy them in large numbers giving no thought to where the money goes.
#3 by Delos Johnson on May 2, 2013 - 7:52 pm
Any thoughts on the British Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act? Seems like it could become quite a problem.
#4 by Ed Greenberg on May 9, 2013 - 9:27 pm
Conceptually I don’t like it one bit. However, it is important for me to point out that I don’t practice law in the UK. We do have local counsel in London.
More importantly, it appears to me that once again photographers were caught sleeping on their rights. From what I can tell from listening to BBC (which I do nightly) and the UK press, photographers in the UK did little to nothing to protect their rights. If I am wrong about that I am sure someone will correct me, but sitting here across the pond, I didn’t see much evidence of creators waging a meaningful campaign in opposition to this act which serves to permit the widespread use of so-called “orphan” images with few impediments.