Asia Fashion Weekly News Bulletin – ISSUE 3 Week of 24 February 2025
(1) Upcycle for a greener fashion industry – but beware Intellectual Property infringement
The fashion industry’s impact on water waste and carbon emissions makes sustainability vital, especially in Asia.
(2) Inside Coupang’s Tug of War With Farfetch
Coupang’s cuts have pushed Farfetch to profitability, a feat the luxury e-tailer struggled to achieve as an independent business.
(3) Meghan Markle Faces Another Business Blow As She’s BANNED From Selling Clothes Under Her Controversial ‘As Ever’ Brand — Over Mix-Up With Chinese ‘Fast Fashion’ Firm
Meghan Markle’s lifestyle brand “As Ever” faces trademark issues with a Chinese company, blocking her from selling clothing.
(4) Why did Birkenstock try to claim its sandals are art?
A German court recently ruled that the design of Birkenstocks doesn’t count as art, allowing other brands to mimic the distinctive sandals.
(1) Upcycle for a greener fashion industry – but beware Intellectual Property infringement
(Photo Credit: Mail & Guardian)
The fashion industry is responsible for significant environmental issues, producing about 20% of global water waste and 10% of carbon emissions, with projections indicating a 60% increase in emissions from textile manufacturing by 2030. In Asia, where countries like China and India dominate textile production, the need for sustainable practices is increasingly urgent. Upcycling, which involves modifying old or outdated products to make them appealing to consumers again, presents a potential solution to reduce waste and promote sustainability, but it raises complex legal questions regarding intellectual property rights, particularly concerning the use of trademarked materials.
The trademark exhaustion principle allows the commercialisation of goods after their initial sale, meaning trademark owners cannot prevent further distribution. However, this principle may not apply to upcycled products that use trademarked materials if they are materially different from the originals. Asian brands must navigate this legal landscape carefully, as misuse of trademarks in upcycled goods could lead to trademark infringement claims, which is especially pertinent in regions where the fashion market is rapidly evolving and consumer expectations are shifting towards sustainability.
Several cases in the United States illustrate the legal complexities surrounding upcycling, with brands like Chanel and Louis Vuitton successfully litigating against companies that altered their products without permission. These legal precedents underscore the importance of understanding intellectual property rights when engaging in upcycling, a consideration that Asian brands must be mindful of as they pursue sustainable initiatives. While the exhaustion principle can support upcycling efforts, the potential for trademark infringement complicates the landscape, necessitating careful navigation to align sustainability goals with legal compliance.
News Source: https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/opinion/2025-02-26-upcycle-for-a-greener-fashion-industry-but-beware-intellectual-property-infringement/
(2) Inside Coupang’s Tug of War With Farfetch
(Photo Credit: BoF Studio)
Coupang, often likened to South Korea’s Amazon, primarily offers low-cost goods, while Farfetch specialises in luxury brands. Following the acquisition, Coupang aimed to transform Farfetch from an unprofitable company with declining sales into a sustainable marketplace, streamlining operations and eliminating unprofitable segments of the business.
Coupang’s efforts have reportedly brought Farfetch close to breakeven in its earnings, a milestone it struggled to reach as an independent entity. However, these cost-cutting measures have raised concerns among former employees, who argue that the reductions have weakened the brand’s appeal to affluent consumers and luxury partners. Significant cuts included the sale of underperforming brands and a drastic reduction in budgets for VIP services and events, which were previously crucial for maintaining relationships with high-spending customers.
As Farfetch’s relationships with luxury brands deteriorate due to Coupang’s strategies, it has deviated from practices that reassured brands about pricing integrity. This shift raises questions about whether consumers will notice the absence of brand endorsements or exclusive events. In contrast, competitors like Mytheresa are successfully focusing on elite clientele and curated selections, benefiting from a strategy that emphasises premium service and brand relationships, a contrast that highlights the potential pitfalls of Coupang’s approach in the luxury e-commerce sector.
News Source: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/luxury/the-inside-story-on-how-coupang-is-mismanaging-farfetch/
(3) Meghan Markle Faces Another Business Blow As She’s BANNED From Selling Clothes Under Her Controversial ‘As Ever’ Brand — Over Mix-Up With Chinese ‘Fast Fashion’ Firm
(Photo Credit: MEGA)
Court documents indicate that Meghan Markle is encountering challenges in launching her new lifestyle brand, “As Ever.” The Duchess of Sussex, 43, is prohibited from selling clothing under this brand due to trademark conflicts with a Chinese “fast fashion” company named “ASEVER.” The US Patent and Trademark Office issued a “partial rejection” of her trademark application in July, highlighting the potential for confusion between the two names.
Meghan announced her rebranding initiative last week, with plans for “As Ever” to debut next month, featuring food products such as jams and dog biscuits. This venture aligns with her culinary interests and coincides with her upcoming Netflix cooking show, “With Love Meghan.” However, a trademark lawyer warned that if she ventures into clothing sales under the “As Ever” name, she risks legal action.
Mark Kolski, owner of a New York-based clothing company also named “As Ever,” expressed concerns over the branding dispute. Although he does not own the trademark, he believes he holds common law rights to use the name since he has operated under it since 2017. Kolski highlighted the disparity in resources, noting that Meghan’s venture has the backing of Netflix, making it challenging for small businesses like his to compete legally.
News Source:https://radaronline.com/p/meghan-markle-faces-business-blow-banned-selling-clothes-as-ever-brand/
(4) Why did Birkenstock try to claim its sandals are art?
(Photo Credit: Michael Probst)
A German court ruled that Birkenstock sandals are not considered art, which the company claimed to protect under copyright laws against knockoffs. The court emphasised that copyrights protect unique expressive works, not functional designs like sandals. Alexandra Roberts, professor of law and media at Northeastern University, explained that functional elements cannot be copyrighted, while trademarks and trade dress offer protection for branding and design features.
This ruling highlights the complexities of intellectual property in fashion, where brands can create similar functional designs as long as they avoid infringing on creative elements. For instance, Lilly Pulitzer can copyright the pattern of a dress but not the design itself. This allows brands to produce affordable versions of popular items, as long as they do not use trademarked logos.
To that end, the decision allows competitors to replicate Birkenstock’s sandal design without legal repercussions, reinforcing the notion that functional designs in fashion are not granted the same protections as artistic works.
News Source: https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/02/26/birkenstock-lawsuit-art-copyright/
