ILNews

Fashion and law intersect

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As the fashion industry continues to grow in Indianapolis – including a handful of fashion design programs at colleges and universities in central Indiana, and at least four organizations for local designers and supporters of fashion in Indiana – an upcoming lecture about the intersection of fashion and the law just seems to make sense for the design community and the legal community.

“Fashioning the Law of Design” will take place at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, 530 W. New York St. at 5:30 p.m. Nov. 9. The lecture is the Jordan H. and Joan R. Leibman Annual Forum, which has traditionally included topics that somehow touch on art, business, and law.

This program will include intellectual property attorney Kenan Farrell, a solo in Indianapolis who graduated from the law school in 2003 and previously practiced in San Francisco. He represents various players in the local fashion community, including designers and makeup artists, as well as visual artists, musicians, and others in creative endeavors around the world but mostly in Indiana.
 

Allen Attorney Niquelle Allen was working for Eli Lilly when she decided to quit in April 2009 to follow her dream to open her consignment store, Butterfly Boutique, in Indianapolis. She also works for a law firm part-time. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

The other featured speaker is Beth Bennett, founder and owner of Beth Bennett Couture, where she makes custom clothes for clients. She is also an adjunct professor who teaches fashion design courses at the Art Institute of Indianapolis, and has and continues to design costumes for theatre productions in Indianapolis.

After Farrell and Bennett address the audience, the conversation will continue with a question-and-answer session, followed by a reception in the law school atrium at 6:45 p.m. The event is free and open to the public, and includes 1.3 hours of CLE credit.
 

Bennett Bennett

Farrell and Bennett have similar stances on the legal issues of fashion, which they plan to address at the lecture.

For instance, both disagree with the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act, which was introduced in Congress Aug. 7. However, it does have the support of the both the Council of Fashion Designers of America and the American Apparel & Footwear Association.

It’s not because either Farrell or Bennett disagrees with the protection of trademarks. Neither one thinks it’s OK for fake goods to be passed off as their brand name counterparts. For instance, they agree that a purse that looks like it was made by Coach, that includes a Coach label, shouldn’t be sold for a small fraction of the price by a street vendor.

But they don’t think a fashion design on its own should be patented.

For instance, Farrell pointed out that because fashion moves so quickly, a design on the runway in the fall could be passé within six months, not to mention within two years or longer that it would take for a patent to be processed.

Not to mention how congested the courts could become if someone could file suits over fashion designs. Clothes, unless passed off as having a trademark they do not really have, are considered a utilitarian item, like food or certain car parts that also have limited intellectual property protection.


Farrell Farrell

Another issue he said that could hurt even the bigger manufacturers is that fashion doesn’t just trickle down, but designers also can get inspiration from what they see people wear on the street.

So if a designer happened to see an outfit on a design student and copied it, and the student figured out that her look was copied exactly, under the proposed act the student could sue the designer if the student had the means, Farrell said.

Bennett said it’s rare for a designer to want to copy another design exactly. At least that has been the case with her and other designers she knows of in Indianapolis and her students.

Because she makes everything custom, even if a client shows her a photo of a wedding dress she really likes, Bennett said she will still modify it enough to better suit the client’s style and fit, and to make it an original design.

She said she has some concern that someone could copy one of her designs, but the closest she has come is someone using a photograph of one of her dresses and passing it off as her own on a website.

Bennett said she has been lucky not to need a lawyer so far. But in case she does, she said she documents every fitting and every meeting with her clients, and then has the clients sign those documents, so there’s no confusion later on either side.

Another example of fashion and law intersecting is attorney Niquelle Allen’s shop in Indianapolis, Butterfly Consignment.

Allen practiced at Ice Miller from 2004 to 2007, then at Eli Lilly from 2007 to 2009.

Because she had shopped in consignment stores since she was in college in the late 1990s, she had always wanted to open her own store. But it wasn’t until April 2009 when she had a conversation with some of her best friends about their dream jobs that she decided to do it.

While her friends mentioned jobs like Oprah’s personal assistant or having a cooking show on cable, hers was the most attainable and they encouraged her to follow her dream.

She then read a book about resale shops that she had bought a year ago, and quit her job shortly after. Before opening her store in December 2009, she took a few classes through the Business Ownership Initiative of Indiana, which is affiliated with the U.S. Small Business Administration.

In June, she started practicing law again but only on a contract basis with a new Indianapolis firm, Fleming Stage, which consists of attorneys who are also Ice Miller alums.

Allen said her legal experience has been useful in her business including contracts for consigners – 50 percent of each sale goes back to the consigner; trademark issues for brand name items – she will not sell counterfeits in her store; and her experience in employment law matters has helped her deal with her employees and customers.

“I’ve learned from my experience in employment law it’s better to be honest because if you’re not, it can come back to haunt you later,” something she emphasizes with her employees, she said.

For instance, if a consigner comes in with a jacket that’s unacceptable because it’s out of fashion, it smells like cigarette smoke, it has a defect or stain, or if there’s any other reason the store wouldn’t carry the item, Allen said it’s better to explain to the customer, nicely, why they won’t accept the item.

Like Farrell and Bennett, Allen supports the growing community of designers in Indiana. She carries three categories of items: “pre-loved”; “N” love, new items from boutiques; and “made with love.”

She carries “made with love” items from 15 vendors around the state, mostly businesses owned by women, including jewelry and accessories, such as purses by ReFind Originals Recycled Leather Bags, and handmade soap by Curat Clean, both based in Indianapolis.

All three expect fashion will continue to grow in Indianapolis, and “why not?” Farrell said. “Indianapolis is one of the top 10 growing cities in the country, many young people live here who are well educated and have money to spend,” he said.

He added that because of this, there will likely be more legal issues for those who are involved with fashion.

“For any industry to grow, you need all the players in place, including the lawyers,” he said. “Lawyers need to focus on intellectual property and fashion, and the business of fashion, so the designers can focus on being creative.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT