Ralph Lauren takes London's Chunk clothing company to European court in bike polo trademark row

William Black wrote:

I would say that's pretty fair from Ralph Lauren..

Take a look at chunk as a brand and they really are very similar in style and ethos/target demographic etc you could even say they've aped the Ralph Lauren website, yes one is on a horse and one is on a bike...but come on you don't need to be an expert in IP Law they've even copied Ralph Lauren's bloody 2013 t-shirt designs!

^^Chunk

^^Polo

This.

To me, it's either just a blatant rip-off of the Ralph Lauren "Polo" brand or, if not, at least a tongue-in-cheek parody of it, but neither of which are commercially acceptable. It's not sports-wear, it's clearly fashion-wear and the prices aren't vastly cheaper than Ralph Lauren's either.

Nothing against the Chunk brand, and I admire their tenacity in defending it to date, but there can only be one outcome here. It's a world away from the Specialized/Cafe Roubaix debate last week.

parksey wrote:

William Black wrote:

I would say that's pretty fair from Ralph Lauren..

Take a look at chunk as a brand and they really are very similar in style and ethos/target demographic etc you could even say they've aped the Ralph Lauren website, yes one is on a horse and one is on a bike...but come on you don't need to be an expert in IP Law they've even copied Ralph Lauren's bloody 2013 t-shirt designs!

This.

To me, it's either just a blatant rip-off of the Ralph Lauren "Polo" brand or, if not, at least a tongue-in-cheek parody of it, but neither of which are commercially acceptable. It's not sports-wear, it's clearly fashion-wear and the prices aren't vastly cheaper than Ralph Lauren's either.

Nothing against the Chunk brand, and I admire their tenacity in defending it to date, but there can only be one outcome here. It's a world away from the Specialized/Cafe Roubaix debate last week.

No lawyer I, but... it's a polo shirt with the designer's badge on the left breast and some 1950s preppy/Ivy sports styling; that's not a protectable design of itself. If it were, Ralph Lauren, Hackett, Jack Wills and indeed half the world's other presently-fashionable clothiers would all be on the receiving end of lawsuits from J Press and Brooks Brothers, who codified the much-copied look back in the 1930s.

Secondly, if the combination of logo and clothing design does appear to be a parody of Ralph Lauren's - which would be something for a court to decide, though I would venture that this instance very obviously is - then it's perfectly legal; parody is well-established as non-infringing fair commercial use of IP.

Lord Fishface wrote:

Secondly, if the combination of logo and clothing design does appear to be a parody of Ralph Lauren's - which would be something for a court to decide, though I would venture that this instance very obviously is - then it's perfectly legal; parody is well-established as non-infringing fair commercial use of IP.

it really isn't. or rather it is, but you can't just claim something is a parody and that's that. the regulation of parodies has become increasingly strict.

Quote:

The sole test is whether the defendant’s work has reproduced a substantial part of the plaintiff’s ex hypothesi copyright work. The fact that the defendant in reproducing his work may have himself employed labour and produced something original, or some part of his work which is original, is beside the point if none the less the resulting defendant’s work reproduces without the licence of the plaintiff a substantial part of the plaintiff’s work.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

... you can't just claim something is a parody and that's that. the regulation of parodies has become increasingly strict.

Fair use is exception-based. The relevant precedent comes from a US case - the UK's fair dealing law lacks a specific parody clause, but precedents from US law can be afforded weight in cases over here - over a cover of Roy Orbison's 'Pretty Woman': "For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." (Campbell et al vs. Acuff-Rose, 1994)

In this instance, there's a good prima facie case that taking the image of a polo player - symbolic of the pseudo old-world, faux-aristocratic "lifestyle" look that Lauren peddles - and replacing his pony with a bicycle - both as the working man's transport, and as an inherently comical juxtaposition - constitutes commentary, and is, legally-speaking, "transformative".

I'm not claiming that would constitute a watertight defence, but the case is not nearly as open-and-shut as the majority of those commenting seem to believe; something underlined by the UK courts' decision in Chunk's favour back in April.

As an aside, it's also worth of note that Lauren did indeed attempt to assert a copyright over polo shirts back in 1980s; he lost, and lost badly, since Brooks Brothers were able to cite prior art going back fifty years.

parksey wrote:

William Black wrote:

I would say that's pretty fair from Ralph Lauren..

Take a look at chunk as a brand and they really are very similar in style and ethos/target demographic etc you could even say they've aped the Ralph Lauren website, yes one is on a horse and one is on a bike...but come on you don't need to be an expert in IP Law they've even copied Ralph Lauren's bloody 2013 t-shirt designs!

^^Chunk

^^Polo

This.

To me, it's either just a blatant rip-off of the Ralph Lauren "Polo" brand or, if not, at least a tongue-in-cheek parody of it, but neither of which are commercially acceptable. It's not sports-wear, it's clearly fashion-wear and the prices aren't vastly cheaper than Ralph Lauren's either.

Nothing against the Chunk brand, and I admire their tenacity in defending it to date, but there can only be one outcome here. It's a world away from the Specialized/Cafe Roubaix debate last week.

how is that a blatant rip off? the only similarirty is that they are both polo t shirts!
no one owns the polo t shirt.

polo is all in one colour, chunk has differnt colour for arm hems and colar...
its also not purple.
and the logo is different.

sorry but you are wrong

allez neg wrote:

The bicycle one is somewhat erm, inspired by the posh horsey one from the looks of it. As the horsey one came first then could the bike one not be altered? The angle of attack and the raised mallet etc?

Why do something deliberately provocative and then express surprise when you get the most likely reaction?

Anyway, we should not be diverted by this mere trifling, and focus on polo pony welfare. I hear several drowned this year in tournaments.

Apologies if i'm being thick here but how can exactly does the Polo Horse drown on a polo pitch as there is no water involved?

Maybe people are more easily confused than some of us would expect - they can't tell the difference between a polo pony and a polo bike! Even worse with the drownings can they not tell the difference between a grassy polo pitch and the swimming pool used for water polo?

Personally I love my Chunk shirt with the bike polo logo on it but wouldn't be keen to wear a shirt with the other logo (Ralph Lauren) on it.

What we need is for a really big name is the fashion industry to support the guys at Chunk against Ralph Lauren and argue in their defence. Somebody who is fairly clear about the difference between a polo pony and a bike - so what about it Sir Paul Smith?

wildoo wrote:

allez neg wrote:

The bicycle one is somewhat erm, inspired by the posh horsey one from the looks of it. As the horsey one came first then could the bike one not be altered? The angle of attack and the raised mallet etc?

Why do something deliberately provocative and then express surprise when you get the most likely reaction?

Anyway, we should not be diverted by this mere trifling, and focus on polo pony welfare. I hear several drowned this year in tournaments.

Apologies if i'm being thick here but how can exactly does the Polo Horse drown on a polo pitch as there is no water involved?

I have good reason to believe it is a nod to a classic Bob Hope joke.....so it could be subject to a copyright claim...though Bob Hope himself is pursuing that pesky hubs company that is stealing his brand equity