Forever 21, Famous For Copying Clothing Designs, Tries To Silence Blogger With Infringement Threats

from the wtf? dept

Tue, Jun 7th 2011 3:19am — Mike Masnick

For years, in the discussions on fashion copyright, we've defended the right of companies such as Forever 21 to copy fashion designs, make cheaper versions and sell them in their stores. Actually, Forever 21 is often the poster child of examples from those who want a brand new fashion copyright law. The company has also been subject to a few lawsuits for copying, most of which have settled. However, apparently, the company doesn't recognize the irony in then abusing intellectual property claims to threaten a satirical blogger, who writes a blog making fun of the retailer, called WTForever 21.

Of course, the main focus o Forever 21's lawyers is on the trademark claim, though there is a copyright claim in there as well. One would hope Forever 21's lawyers are aware of the pretty long line of legal decisions noting that websites critical of companies (often referred to as "sucks sites") are perfectly legal, in most cases, in large part because no one would confuse the sucks site for the original. That reasoning certainly applies here. Of course, Forever 21's lawyers point to the increasingly popular "dilution" interpretation of trademark law to claim that connecting their brand with the internet slang term "WTF" is diluting. This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. Seriously, WTF Forever 21? Someone putting up such a site doesn't harm your trademark.

You know what does harm your trademark? Stupidly threatening the satire site, in the first place.

Separately, the lawyers claim copyright infringement (which, yes, is quite laughable coming from this particular company), because the blogger made use of images from Forever 21. Once again, while the specific uses may matter, it seems like there's likely a strong fair use argument here. But, even more to the point, it is entirely clear from the letter, that Forever 21's complaint has nothing to do with infringement of either trademarks or copyright at all, but the fact that the company doesn't like being made fun of.

This is not what either trademark or copyright law was designed to deal with.

Using both such laws for this purpose is clearly an abuse of the law to try to censor a critic. I may defend, strongly, Forever 21's right to copy fashion designs, but the company has gone way overboard here in an attempt to stifle speech.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, free speech, infringement, satire, trademark
Companies: forever 21

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:20am

Mr. Noh, welcome to the internet age. In the past using shady letters to terrorize someone into silence might have been a valuable tool in your trade. Now from the minute you send one of these ill-conceived missives out, there is a running clock. When that clock hits zero, the internet as a whole becomes aware of your heavy handed attempts to kill free speech and create the illusion the company you represent has special rights. You now join the great people of Monster Cable as laughingstocks. You might want to go Google "Monster Cable Threats" to see what a laughing stock they are now in the perception of the public. Any "damage" caused to the brand you represent was inflicted by you, I suggest you start looking for a sacrificial underling you can throw under the bus to save your worthless hide. We would explain in greater detail why your wrong, but that might stop you from making this mistake again and providing more entertainment to offset the sheer number of cute cat things on the internet.

In closing, maybe you can get some night school classes on these areas of the law so you might handle them correctly in the future.

Teh Internets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Codefragment (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 4:59am

Thanks for pointing me towards a fun site!
The Streisand effect in full force, especially as the WTForever 21 is quite amusing. I'll have to share it with my friends.

On a silly note, anyone notice how gigantic Noh's signature is? It's the size of a paragraph and it's clipped at the margins, like he started it by writing on the surface of his desk. The threat doesn't scale with the signature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:46am
  
  Re: Thanks for pointing me towards a fun site!
  Maybe the signature was an image that was pasted carelessly into the document? It looks like it's been stretched way out of proportion. Or is that just incredibly bad penmanship?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re: Thanks for pointing me towards a fun site!
    You know what they say, big signature, big...billing fees.
    
    Or is it big pencil?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- hancocky, 9 Jun 2011 @ 10:47pm
  
  Re: Thanks for pointing me towards a fun site!
  You know what they say about a BIG signature...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonamoose, 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:15am

FIXED:
the main focus of* Forever 21's lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:25am

Unfair competition?
How is WTForever21.com unfairly competing? Why didn't they just try to throw the kitchen sink at them as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:03am

Sadly according to the Jezebel coverage of the story the lady behind the site is planning to fold the site on the 10th.

Hopefully a wild lawyer will appear and use reason... and it will be very effective.

wow... pokemon references.... whats wrong with me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:16am

Some people are actually going to like some of the hideous items that site makes fun of. Its free publicity, but more importantly, its honest...I mean, many of those items invoke a WTF response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 7 Jun 2011 @ 6:46am

Decision
Riddle me this....

Which is more ridiculous, the law or comedy. Or, are they one-in-the-same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Atkray (profile), 7 Jun 2011 @ 8:43am
  
  Re: Decision
  There is nothing funny about law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2011 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re: Decision
    Unless it makes you laugh to keep from screaming.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]