Or if not all soles, at least the red ones -- courtesy of Christian Louboutin, who celebrated 20 years and the release of his new book last night at Barneys New York with a chorus of well-shod sartorial saints.  

When the New York Times' Eric Wilson listened to Oprah Winfrey and Ralph Lauren chat for charity, one exchange stood out: 

"How do you keep reinventing?"

"You copy," he said. "Forty-five years of copying, that's why I'm here."

Of course, everyone knows that the signature looks of the Ralph Lauren family of brands are inspired by classic Americana -- with an occasional detour around the globe -- but coming from the guy who was on the losing end of the best-known design piracy case of the late 20th century, the admission strikes a chord. 

Honestly, honesty?  Now, when the U.S. may be on the brink of finally passing a law that, while it wouldn't come anywhere near the level of the French protection that wrangled Ralph, would have a similar effect in some cases?   

Was it a passive protest or conscience-clearing comment?  You decide.  (And in the meantime, Ralph's crack team of attorneys, a truly talented collection, will continue to be hard at work protecting his marvelously strong marks.)
 

Counterfeit Chic has two reasons to cheer for the U.S.Chamber this fall:  an informative visit to the Fashion Law Institute from a group of Chinese Supreme People's Court judges and a newly issued letter in support of the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (IDPPPA), currently H.R. 2511. 

The pithiest part of the letter may be the statistics, which refer to "14,000 companies in the fashion and apparel industry in the U.S., directly employing approximately 4 million Americans and indirectly employing countless others," though I confess a personal partiality to my punny "narrowly tailored" thumbprint.  (Spotting the meme is always amusing, though it's a pity it can't be in the actual legislation.)  Of course, as long as we're aggregating numbers, let's not forget the 312 million Americans who regularly wear clothes, in some fashion.  Still think it's frivolous?

And the most memorable quote from the China-U.S. roundtable may be from the lovely Senior Judge Xia Junli, who concluded a discussion of comparative fashion design protection by saying, "I hope your bill passes...so that we can come back and study it."  Yes and yes!

Of course, it sounds like China already has better formal, albeit untested, intellectual property protection for fashion designs than the U.S. does.  (Who do we think we are, anyway, a global leader in IP protection?)  Perhaps the letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will help clean things up on this side of the world!   

You can't take it with you -- or can you?  

In the words of the Daily Mail, "[i]t was never going to break new fashion ground."  

This assessment of the new Kardashian Kollection for Sears is particularly appropriate to one handbag in particular, a klose kopy of the easily recognizable Botkier Clyde bag, which has been around since '04.  Will celebrity "designers" ever look beyond their own klosets for inspiration? 


Sadly for the softer side of Sears, this particular design includes iconic Botkier elements that may very well add up to trade dress protection -- and Monica Botkier knows it.  Dash for your lawyers, ladies. 

In an effort to stanch the flow of red dye onto the soles of competing YSL shoes, Louboutin not only filed a lawsuit back in April but also asked the court for a preliminary injunction against unauthorized use of his trademarked red soles.  YSL fought back with references to red soles from Louis XIV's heels to Dorothy's ruby slippers to examples from its own archives, claiming that no cobbler can corner the market on red -- and that the Louboutin trademark is thus invalid. 

Today's decision from Judge Victor Marrero, while merely the denial of a preliminary injunction, fell decidedly on the side of YSL -- though the ultimate outcome of the case remains uncertain.  And even were Louboutin's trademark to be canceled in the U.S., the red soles were declared "distinctive" and thus eligible for protection in Europe just two months ago. 

More significant from the perspective of fashion and intellectual property law is the analogy that guided the court's decision.  Fashion designers often rely on trademark law for what little legal protection they have in the U.S., as patents are typically unattainable or impractical and copyright law specifically excludes fashion designs.  Useful articles are categorically excluded from copyright protection, and the Copyright Office has consistently taken the position that articles of apparel are useful.

Judge Marrero, however, hung his order on the hypothetical example of Picasso attempting to prevent Monet from using the color blue in the Water Lilies series because the color had been Picasso's hallmark during his Blue Period.  Unthinkable from an art history perspective, of course.  The court acknowledges that no analogy is perfect -- but then goes on to claim that both painting and fashion design exist in the overlapping spheres of art and commerce, and that neither is well served by individual monopolies on color.

Setting aside the troubling conflation of use of a red sole as a trademark versus use as a design element, the separation of which is the true challenge in this case, the court's analogy raises an essential question:  Why are paintings characterized as "art" and entitled to full copyright protection while fashion receives almost none?
 
This question captured my attention back when I was a law student, has informed a decade and a half of thought and research -- and will hopefully one day no longer be necessary.  But in the meantime, Gucci should shelter its trademarked green-red-green stripes, and Tiffany had better watch its little blue boxes' backs.

Alas, Counterfeit Chic arrived at eBay too late to secure this season's limited edition "it" tote -- the fashion-for-a cause-version of the "it" bag.  The CFDA-eBay collaboration to combat counterfeiting and celebrate original design included the basic $35 model, bearing the slogan, "You Can't Fake Fashion,"

And speaking of aspiration, here's hoping for a reissue of the sold-out tote!  Or better still, a time when its message is no longer necessary.   

Again.

With public announcement of the upcoming House subcommittee hearing on the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (IDPPPA, or ID3PA, as Star Wars fans might prefer) this Friday, my email accounts look like popcorn overflowing one of those old-fashioned theater kettle popcorn makers.  Before I'm completely buried under kernels of wit and wisdom, allow me to answer a few of your personal questions with a stroll down memory lane.  The short answer to many of them?  A long time.

If you've dropped by for a quick review of the actual bill, click here for a description of the Senate version from the last Congress, essentially the same text as the new bill in the House. 

And now, back to that mini-memoir. 

A century.  That's the period during which U.S. fashion designers have been seeking intellectual property protection from Congress -- though the historian in me always starts the story a bit earlier.  It's also happens to be how far back I can document my own family's arrival in America and involvement with the fashion industry.

15 years.  That's how far back my personal files on the question of intellectual property law and fashion design stretch.  Repeated thanks to my first research assistant, Kelly, who helped me start the research process.  (See also "A century, feels like.")

6 years.  That's the age of Counterfeit Chic, which was the first blog on fashion & law and a place to share the topics about which I'd been thinking and starting to speak and write publicly.  Happily, you read it!  In class, late at night, for work, while you were supposed to be working....  (Why the years of fairly-silent-but-not-dormant study?  Long story.)

5 years.  Exactly 5 years and 4 Congresses ago this month, in fact.  That was the first showing of Ms. Scafidi Goes to Washington -- with naivité almost equivalent to Jimmy Stewart's, despite its being my hometown -- and also the year we started teaching fashion law, another first. Last month I took a moment to reread my original congressional testimony, and there they are:  all of the arguments that have been bandied about in favor of protection since.  Maybe thinking about it for a decade first wasn't such a bad idea.

1 year.  That's how long ago the current version of the fashion design protection bill was introduced in the Senate, after a year and a half of exhaustive and exhausting negotiation and revision of the text.  Alas, after the groundbreaking bill (IMHO) was approved by the Senate Judiciary committee, the Congressional clock ran out.   

<1 year.  That's the length of time the Fashion Law Institute, the world's first academic center on the subject, has been in existence.  Yes, it's about studying, teaching, and sharing information about various aspects of fashion and intellectual property -- and so many more topics.   Of course, I've hardly slept or blogged since, but newborns require a lot of attention.

Several days hence.  Home again to Washington, which JFK infamously called the city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm.  It's taken me quite a while to understand that one. 

During the 112th Congress.  (Don't all memoirs end with the hope that future perfect is more than a verb tense?)   Creative fashion designers will have celebrated the bill's passage into law -- I hope!  


Related posts: IDPPPA: Introducing the Innovative Design Protection and PIracy Prevention Act, a.k.a. Fashion Copyright, March on Washington 4, March on Washington 3, March on Washington 2, March on Washington, Washington Fashion Week 2,  Washington Fashion Week, Ms. Scafidi Goes to Washington,  How I Spent My Summer Vacation,  I'm Just a Bill  

At the wedding of a twin years ago, a group of friends gathered around the bride at the reception to compliment her dress.  Her sister and maid of honor, who was to be married only a few months later, added, "You look beautiful.  I should wear it too."

The rather unlovely bride -- at least in terms of temperament -- turned and snapped, "Why would I let you do that?!  We're already identical, and this is my dress!"  An awkward silence fell as the twin sisters glared at each other.
Presumably Kate Middleton will vent no such fury on the aspiring princesses-for-a-day who are already coveting her Alexander McQueen dress, or knockoffs thereof.  The memory of that awkward wedding moment, however, does call to mind every woman's dilemma, heightened by the tense expectations of a wedding day:  When is wearing the same dress as someone else a faux pas, and when is it merely marching in step with style?

For the legions of bridal, prom, and special occasion designers queuing up to copy Kate's bridal gown, the issues of identicality are less social and more economic and legal.  How can copies be made at the greatest speed and lowest price?  And how close is too close, legally speaking?

In the U.S., design pirates sailing the white-capped waves of bridal lace and silk face few or no obstacles.  Intellectual property law only rarely protects dress designs, though the instant fame of Kate's dress could support a trade dress argument.  (Contrary to the New York Times article on the subject, no "subtle modifications" are required by current U.S. copyright law -- at least until the eventual passage of the IDPPPA or a similar bill.)  In the U.K., however, high street shops and budget bridal emporia will have to copy carefully in order to remain on the right side of the law protecting deigns. 

In the case of Sarah Burton's Alexander McQueen creation for Kate, copyists can take comfort in the fact that, while the style is flattering to Kate and the many would-be dupliKates, the dress is not especially original.  Long lace sleeves and V-shaped neckline over an opaque sweetheart bodice, deeply pleated A-line skirt, train -- been there, done, that, although not this decade.  As with the much copied Issa and Reiss dresses that Kate wore for the announcement of her engagement and the official portrait, the look is classic and elegant -- neither a Diana-style meringue nor an avant-garde style statement. 

On the other hand, even in the U.S. original lace patterns are subject to copyright protection, so the floral lace-covered bodice should give the most meticulous of imitators pause.  As copyists 'round the globe scream for their seamstresses, dismiss their beaders, and buy as much lace as possible, they'll need to be wary of being caught in their own netting -- although it's more often the fabric mills that are responsible for printed patterns and lace designs sold to clothing manufacturers.

Of course, most manufacturers who find themselves "inspired" by Kate's gown are old hands at the imitation game, and they know their local laws well.  Lawyers 'round the world, feel free to enjoy the royal wedding ceremony and linger over the celebration -- the real race right now is not to the courthouse, but to the sales rack.  Once British bookies have paid out on the 6-1 odds that Sarah Burton would be the designated designer, the next bet is who will have the quickest copies. 

One way or another, it will be a photo finish.   

In a Lenten lawsuit filed yesterday, Christian Louboutin has accused the house of Yves Saint Laurent of tarnishing the late designer's halo by copying Louboutin's trademarked red soles. 

But is this a cardinal (red) sin, legally speaking, or another fling with the aesthetic functionality defense that Counterfeit Chic has previously surmised may be a loophole protecting other apparent red-on-red ripoffs?
 

In several of its styles, YSL created not only red shoes with red outsoles, but also purple with purple soles and black with black soles.  Will the company claim that the offending red sole was a non-trademark use chosen simply to match the upper portion of the shoe, thus transubstantiating the otherwise trademarked red sole into a defensible design detail?  With two such successful and storied luxury brands battling it out, we may finally learn whether or not this legal doctrine will be hurled from high heel heaven.

Little-used law aside, however, Counterfeit Chic is somewhat surprised that designers for the distinguished house of YSL would walk where angels fear to tread and hopes that Christian isn't thrown to the legal lions.

UPDATE:  Complaint here.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE:  Answer and counterclaim here.

You can never be too rich or too thin -- or can you?

The fashion industry is engaged in a constant dialogue about what is beautiful.  And twice a year, during the world's series of major fashion weeks, an issue arises that divides public opinion like a shark fin cutting the still, mirrored surface of a lagoon:  Is fashion's ever taller, ever thinner, Silly Putty standard of beauty harmful?

Several years ago, in the wake of the highly publicized deaths of several models who had struggled with eating disorders, many international fashion capitals considered mandatory regulations regarding models' weight.  New York legislators ultimately declined to pass city or state laws enforcing controversial BMI standards, and American designers instead adopted health awareness guidelines. 

Still, the debate rages on:  If runways can become more racially diverse and still reflect designers' visions -- call it the Michelle O effect -- could diversity of size follow?

Your favorite law prof recently enjoyed a conversation about size with model/filmmaker Sara Ziff and model/author Crystal Renn, two wonderful women with a mission to make the world safer for models, and by extension for the rest of us.  You can check it out, and join in, over at New York Magazine.  And if you haven't seen or read Sara's and Crystal's respective stories, you'll enjoy them -- along with a guilt-free bowl of popcorn.

Still skeptical about whether models of different sizes could ever share the same runway?  Take a look at this passage from Frieda Steinmann Curtis' book, How to Give a Fashion Show, originally published in 1950:

One...should be a well-built statuesque woman, not too heavy but certainly not thin, who can wear a size 16 or 18 and make a very smart appearance.  It is also a good idea to have a white or grey-haired woman, with a young face and a medium-sized figure, as a permanent model.  Add to these, two younger girls, size 10 and 12, and you will have a fine group around which you can always build a satisfactory show. 

Even taking into account size deflation -- a 16 or 18 in 1950 might be an 8 or 10 today -- that's a far cry from modern casting directors' uniform size zero. 

Of course, change is always more complex to implement than it originally seems.  A designer may wish to present a particular aesthetic concept requiring specific models.  And in general, an interchangeable set of identically molded models is easier and thus less expensive to fit than a group of distinct individual bodies.  On the other hand, fit is no substitute for performance and personality.  And now that fashion shows are increasingly seen from the internet's infinite front row rather than by limited group of tastemakers, what customer wouldn't warm to seeing a more polished version of herself on the runway?  

So, retro (size) chic anyone?

Who knew that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was so punny or had such a finely tuned sense of timing? 

On Valentine's Day, ICE took a group of online retailers by storm, shutting down websites selling fake versions of 14 different fashion brands:  Breitling, Burberry, Chanel, Coach, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Nike, Omega, Patek Philipe, Prada, Rolex , Tiffany & Co. and Timberland.  The action, "Operation Broken Hearted," was the fourth phase of "Operation In Our Sites," which targets online counterfeiting.

Presumably the ICEmen were aware that a mere two days later the Senate Judiciary Committee would be holding a hearing on Senator Leahy's somewhat controversial Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).  Originally introduced in the last session of Congress, the bill would expand the Attorney General's power to shut down offending websites by choking off their life support systems, which in the case of these electronic retail beings means access to internet, financial, and advertising services.  Teams are divided as expected:  intellectual property rights holders (in favor), free internet folks and the occasional government-leery libertarian (against), and service providers (very wary).  

Counterfeit Chic predicts that COICA is likely to pass at some point, in some form, and thus allow the AG to wield a bigger club in its ongoing game of whack-a-mole against online counterfeiters -- but wishes that the acronym weren't so close to "cloaca." 

With the passing today of Charles Nolan, the fashion community has lost a true Renaissance man. 

Whether we ran into one another in Charleston at New Year's or New York during Fashion Week, whether the subject was fashion or politics, Charles always had a definite opinion and a keen wit.  And yes, he also had his own tales of being copied, including one involving a particular Ellen Tracy jacket with a shoulder that had taken seemingly infinite iterations to get just right -- the mark of a designer who wouldn't rest until his clients were both comfortable and stylish. In Charles' invitingly furnished boutique, the eclectic mix of books and clothing was always a reminder that in his world every woman's best feature is (or should be) her mind, and that style is a reflection of inner beauty.  He will be greatly missed.    

Counterfeit Chic's thoughts and prayers are with Andy Tobias and the rest of Charles' family. 

The "yeas" have it - unanimously!  Now all the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act (IDPPPA, S.3728) has to do is get through the full Senate and House and garner a Presidential signature -- piece o' cake.  (Yes, for this we'll indulge in carbs.)

Many thanks to those of you who have supported the work on the bill and especially to those who attended our Fashion Law Institute panel last night, "The Real Story of the Fake Fashion Bill," as well as to panelists Jeffrey Banks, Alain Coblence, Carol Hochman, and Steven Kolb -- and those who were too busy in Washington to make it, Kurt Courtney Steve Lamar, and Liz Robbins. Also, allow me to apologize on behalf the other participants and myself for looking a bit frantic and running in and out during the reception and even the panel itself.  At least you all had a front row seat at a key moment in fashion law history!

If you need a refresher, details on the bill are here.  Stay tuned -- after my nap!

P.S.  Please excuse the plethora of exclamation points in this post.  It's been a long road -- but I need to save a few for the day when our tenacious little bill finally becomes law!

The name wasn't my idea -- let's get that out of the way first thing.  But the new Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, IDPPPA or S.3728 to friends, is a significant step forward for both U.S. intellectual property law and for the fashion industry. 

Speaking of friends, this bill has quite a few of them.  It's the successor to the Design Piracy Prohibition Act (DPPA) introduced in the previous two sessions of Congress and in the House in April 2009,  so the party's been ready to start for a while.  Senator Charles Schumer (Chuck, since we're all on an informal basis here) introduced the bill along with 10 initial co-sponsors, as well as a thumbs-up from not only the Council of Fashion Designers of America, the initial proponent of protection, but also the American Apparel and Footwear Association, which had previously expressed some concerns.  In other words, the creative designers and the companies traditionally more focused on manufacturing and distribution gathered around the table, talked to Chuck, and now there's a bill.  (Yes, since many of you have asked, I was the academic at the table during the process.  It's a nice table.  And that's about all I should say, apart from giving props to the senator and his staff, since everyone directly involved agreed to be discreet -- hence the silent blog 'til now.) 

So what's in this narrowly tailored, cutting edge, couture legislation?

Something old (from the previous bills):

• Short, 3-year term of protection.
  
• Structure.  It's an amendment to chapter 13 of the Copyright Act, which currently applies only to vessel hulls.
• High standard to qualify for protection, amounting to originality plus novelty.  New and unique designs will qualify for protection, while everything else remains in the public domain.
  
• Independent creation defense.  As in copyright, it's theoretically possible for creative lightning to strike twice, without triggering liability. 
  

Something new:

• No registration, period.  This eliminates a previous hurdle, goes one step beyond copyright, and benefits emerging designers, my greatest personal concern over the past 5 years.
• Heightened pleading standards to discourage litigation, a.k.a. pleading with particularity.   
  
• Home sewing exception.  This expands the fair use-style provisions already in this chapter of the Copyright Act -- and means that the fashion police can't raid crafters' closets looking for illegal downloads dresses.
  

Something borrowed:

• Substantially identical standard for infringement, largely borrowed from trademark.  Probably the most publicly debated issue, and a compromise dating back to the initial hearing on the DPPA when I proposed a narrower "closely and substantially similar" as an opening gambit and a ranking member of the committee floated "virtually identical" as an alternative.  There have been many iterations since, resulting in this compromise.
  

Something blue:

• Initial mood -- which is probably what a true compromise should engender.  But nothing that another century of lobbying from fashion designers couldn't fix!  In the end, this bill addresses the needs of emerging designers, offers recognition and protection to all creative fashion designers, brings the U.S. in line with IP law in other fashion design-producing countries, closes a legal loophole related to counterfeiting, and will force former copyists to actually design clothing or at least sign licensing agreements -- meaning more jobs for designers and more affordable choices for consumers.  Not bad for half a decade's work.
  

So, in the words of the bard, let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments.  Representatives from two sides of fashion, the CFDA and the AAFA, have come together, with witnesses and testimony from all angles marking their union.  And what Senator Schumer has joined, let no vote put asunder.

Now can we please get to the champagne and dancing?

Related posts: March on Washington 4, March on Washington 3, March on Washington 2, March on Washington, Washington Fashion Week 2,  Washington Fashion Week, Ms. Scafidi Goes to Washington,  How I Spent My Summer Vacation,  I'm Just a Bill

Bridal designer Vera Wang, who recently added Chelsea Clinton to her silk-swathed sisterhood, has called the march down the aisle every woman's red carpet.  And where there's a celebrated red carpet design, ABS by Allen Schwartz is there to knock it off.  It's as predictable as ants at a picnic.

Sure enough, just a day after the exclusive event, ABS announced that it would be offering a version of not only Chelsea's wedding gown but Hillary's Oscar de la Renta as well.  (Who knew that our sometime sartorially stunted Secretary of State would one day become a fashion "inspiration" in her own right?)  Perhaps a line of lavender bridesmaids' dresses will be available for those who'd like to knock off the Clinton-Mezvinsky nuptials in their entirety.  

Were Allen Schwartz to look up from his frantic production of knockoffs and even more frantic production of press quotes, he might note that his efforts are part of a long history of attempts to copy society wedding gowns despite efforts to keep such ceremonies private.  In The Age of Innocence, Edith Wharton painted a similar scene involving an awning that extended from the curb to the door of the church, shielding the bride from onlookers:

The idea of doing away with this awning, and revealing the bride to the mob of dressmakers and newspaper reporters who stood outside fighting to get near the joints of the canvas, exceeded even old Catherine's courage, though for a moment she had considered the possibility.  "Why, they might take a photograph of my child and put it in the papers!" Mrs. Welland exclaimed when her mother's last plan was hinted to her; and from this unthinkable indecency the entire clan recoiled with a collective shudder.   

That was 1920.  And yes, folks, it's still legal in the U.S. for copyists who manage to get a look to sell knockoffs -- pending possible passage of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.  

So much for Vera's legit licensing deal with popularly priced David's Bridal, which presumably hoped to cash in on the Clinton wedding cache itself.
 

P.S.  Photos to follow -- Allen's presumably still stitching!

"I'm thrilled to hear we're not the only industry being devastated by this," film director Steven Soderbergh told attendees at the 6th annual Harper's Bazaar Anti-Counterfeiting Summit yesterday. 

Apparently for Soderbergh the silver lining in the counterfeit cloud is that more money spent on fake fragrance and handbags, online and off, means less spent on pirated DVDs, particularly of his own movies.  But the director's ultimate assessment of the bottom line when it comes to copying is considerably bleaker, and he called for a shift in cultural norms to preserve incentives to create.  "Art moves forward when people take chances, and people are taking fewer chances." 

The real question, however, remained unanswered:  Will Soderbergh's next movie project take on fakes?  Counterfeit Chic is ready to buy tickets for Traffic 2: The Handbag Wars, or perhaps Ocean's 14, in which George Clooney hatches a plan to steal the ultimate "it" bag.  Then again, maybe there's a reason I'm not a film producer.

For an established designer with a dedicated customer base and well-known trademarks, cheap knockoffs are a nagging problem.  For an emerging designer, cheap knockoffs can be a knockout blow.  And despite Counterfeit Chic's many years of publicizing the issue (both as a law prof actively working with members the industry and Congress, and also as a blogger), U.S. law doesn't offer much respite -- yet. 

In today's WSJ, Christina Binkley offers a brilliant up-close look at small designers who are bearing the brunt of the knockoff economy.  These emerging designers have borne many of the blows that I've seen over and over again -- a successful piece that wasn't reordered by retailers, who bought the knockoff instead; consumers who may not even know they're buying a knockoff; copies that hit the stores before the real thing; stores that complain to original designers about the imitations in the marketplace (as if the designers could do anything about it!). 


Interestingly, the article focuses on 2 examples, a printed scarf by Otrera (original above left, but go to the WSJ for an interactive version) and a Shashi bracelet, that could actually be subject to copyright protection, unlike most clothing designs.  But the point remains:  Emerging designers, who fund their future creativity by selling in the present, can't affort to lose sales to the large, mass-market chains that cherrypick their most successful designs. 

While Christina notes the concern that even the pending Design Piracy Prohibition Act couldn't help emerging designers with few resources, Counterfeit Chic's own longstanding and frequently published opinion is that young and independent designers are exactly the ones who need a bit of legal protection.  (Just a bit, narrowly tailored to fit the problem -- minimalism can make for the best legal style.  But more on that another day, hopefully with reference to yet another new version of the bill, coming sooner (or later) to a legislature governing you.)  Not only can a bit of legal light shine into the dark corners where copyists lurk and change industry practice, but the vast majority of intellectual property cases settle out of court, or indeed without ever filing in court, and thus are relatively inexpensive.

Given that some emerging designers feel left out in the cold when it comes to access to and understanding of law, the launch of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham isn't a moment too soon.  The WSJ article reminds me that I need to get back to work -- before yet another young designer becomes a large knockoff artist's lunch.   

We did it!

After more than a decade of working to convince legal academia that fashion was a field worthy of study, after finally establishing a law school course in the field, and after hundreds of hours of interaction with industry stakeholders ranging from international icons to emerging designers, Fashion Law has a home:  the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham.

As a result of the support and advice of the CFDA and its president, Diane von Furstenberg, the Fashion Law Institute will be able to offer training to aspiring lawyers, assistance to designers, and a center for research and information exchange to everyone involved in the field, starting in fall 2010.  None of this could have happened without not only DVF but also the CFDA's executive director, Steven Kolb, and his talented associates; Fordham Law School's dean and associate dean, Bill Treanor and Sheila Foster; and many other wonderful people on both the law and fashion sides of the equation.

When I dreamt of the Fashion Law Institute shortly before our announced launch, however, the scene was simple and dramatic.  As I stretched a hand toward the heavens, the clouds parted and a majestic reclining figure in a wrap dress reached down.  Then a voice sounded.  "Fiat fashion law!"  And lo, there was a Fashion Law Institute.  And she saw that it was good fabulous.

I really must stop watching television just before bedtime. 

So what happens after the creation story?  Keep watching the webpage of the Fashion Law Institute (and occasionally this space).  And thanks to WWD's Marc Karimzadeh for a great article! 

Related post:  Fashion Law