Special Edition – INTA 2013

Fashion, Retail and Design Group

IP protection for store layouts

Staying away from the Chinese trademark pirates

Michael Jordan and Qiaodan Sports – Naming rights and trademarks disputes

Securitizing trademarks – a cross-border view

Emerging fashion markets

Brooks Brothers loses High Court battle

The retail world since INTA 2012

LAW À LA MODE

ContentsContentsTRENDING RIGHT NOW 03 IP protection for store layouts

CHINESE TRADEMARK CLASSES 04 Keeping your brand away from trademark pirates

NAMING RIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS DISPUTES 05 A dispute between Michael Jordan and Qiaodan Sports

SECURITIZING TRADEMARKS 06 A cross-border view

EMERGING FASHION MARKETS 08 What can brand owners learn?

BROOKS BROTHERS BATTLE 10 UK subsidiary loses in High Court

THE RETAIL WORLD SINCE INTA 2012 11 A look at the activities of the Fashion, Retail and Design group since INTA 2012

Editorial

If you are not a regular subscriber to Law à la Mode and would like to receive future editions, please get in touch fashion@dlapiper.com

DLA Piper’s Fashion, Retail and Design group is thrilled to bring you this special edition of Law à la Mode, marking the 135th INTA Annual Meeting in Dallas, Texas.

Our lawyers from across the globe have two things in common: a passion and enthusiasm for the fashion and retail sectors and extensive experience in the legal work important to the sectors. Our group members with experience in trademark and branding issues will be attending this year’s INTA Annual Meeting.

In this special edition, we focus on a number of topical issues for brand owners. Reflecting the firm’s global footprint, the contributions come from geographically diverse locations, including Hong Kong, London, Russia, Sydney, Dubai, Sweden and Ukraine. We very much hope you enjoy it, and we look forward to having the opportunity to meet with you during the

conference and getting your feedback on how these issues affect you and your business. Feel free to contact us at fashion@dlapiper.com.

Editorial Board:

Ruth Hoy, Giangiacomo Olivi and Rebecca Kay

Ruth Hoy and Giangiacomo Olivi Co-Chairs DLA Piper Fashion, Retail and Design Group

02 | Law à la Mode

STORE LAYOUT TRADEMARKS

In the US, seeking trademark protection for the distinctive elements of retail locations is popular within the restaurant and information technology industries, where having a unique store layout and feel is particularly important and part of the traders brand. In 2011, Microsoft obtained registration of a trademark in the US covering the design of “a retail store with four curved table tops at the front and rear side walls and a rectangular band displaying changing video images on the walls.” The following image was used to illustrate the retail store trademark:

OTHER FORMS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION

Obtaining a trademark registration to protect store layout can present various obstacles. For example, in Australia, while it is theoretically possible to seek trademark registration to cover elements of store designs and layouts, in practice, the Registrar is likely to require applicants to establish factual distinctiveness as at the trademark application filing date, unless the design or layout is

particularly unusual. In addition, alleged infringers may be able to defend an infringement action by arguing that they did not use their store fit-out as a “trademark”.

Retail store owners may therefore wish to use trademarks in conjunction with other forms of IP protection such as copyright, patents and design protection to protect their retail concept. Where an expression of ideas is involved, it can be beneficial to apply for copyright protection if available in the jurisdiction of interest (e.g. US or China). Features such as artwork and music may be protected under copyright law. Alternatively, where the look of the store includes functional elements, patent protection may be more suitable. Store owners in the fashion sector may also wish to register their designs in order to gain IP protection. This combined approach is common among store owners in the US, with brands including Apple, Hooters, The Cheesecake Factory, Starbucks, McDonalds and TGI Friday’s Inc using trademarks, copyright and patents to protect their retail fit-out concepts.

INSIGHTS FOR BRAND OWNERS IN THE RETAIL SECTOR

The move towards obtaining trademarks to protect store layout in the US provides brand owners with another element of IP protection to consider as a means of protecting their brand or store concept. This innovative method of trademarking is arguably something high-end fashion retailers or “experience based” fashion stores whose ambience and store layout is particularly unique and distinctive should consider.

TRENDING RIGHT NOWTrademark your Store LayoutBy Melinda Upton and Tessa Kelman (Sydney)

www.dlapiper.com | 03

CHINESE TRADEMARK CLASSESBy Ed Chatterton and Ian Jebbitt (Hong Kong)

China is a first-to-file jurisdiction and has a prevalence of brand pirates who have the ability to hold Western brand owners to ransom.

Many brand owners think that their brands are safe once registered. However, it is possible that brands can be subjected to piracy, even if trademarks are registered in China.

The Chinese system is based on the Nice Classification, consisting of 45 classes of goods/services. However, unlike most Western systems, each Chinese class is divided into a number of different sub-classes, containing “Standard Items” of goods and services.

An application to the Chinese Trademarks Office is cross-checked against pre-existing identical or similar registered trademarks within identical sub-classes. The office does not check pre-existing trademarks in other sub-classes, except where sub-classes are explicitly referenced as similar.

This means that when a mark is registered in one sub-class within a given class, pirates can potentially register identical or confusingly similar marks in a different sub-class within the same given class, for what may be, in practice, very similar goods or services.

GAPS FOR PIRATES TO FILL

Many brand owners have been subject to trademark pirates who spot gaps in sub-class coverage and then fill those gaps. The brand owner must then either engage in a lengthy and uncertain legal action to recover the registration or pay the pirate for an assignment of the registration.

A further complication, particularly for brand owners manufacturing in China for export, is that sophisticated pirates can register pirate trademark registrations with Customs to impound genuine exports, creating supply chain issues for the owner.

There are grounds for brand owners to challenge detention of goods, but this process involves lengthy and uncertain legal procedures, while the goods are detained at Chinese customs and the supply chain remains blocked. This commercial pressure means that brand owners often have no option but to agree to pirate trademark owners’ demands.

The consequence of China’s unique system of sub-classification is that it is increasingly important for brand owners to consider locking out all sub-classes within a given class, to ensure that no third party can register the same brand for similar goods or services.

We strongly advise our clients to ensure they have sufficient comprehensive protection for the Chinese market and, given the importance of this issue, we have developed our PROTECT™ service, which reviews and stress tests Western brands in China, including identifying any gaps in subclass coverage.

For more information on PROTECT™, visit this page www.dlapiper.com/protect.

04 | Law à la Mode

After two decades on the basketball court, Michael Jordan is now learning the rules of defence and offence in the Chinese legal system. Qiaodan Sports Company Limited, a Chinese sportswear company, are throwing their legal dispute with him back into his court.

Michael Jordan was first seen on Chinese television playing at the 1984 Olympics. Since then, he has become hugely famous in China, under his English name and his Chinese name, “ .” While Michael Jordan registered trademarks for “Jordan” in English in China as far back as 1993, he never applied for any registered trademarks for “ ” nor for the pinyin representation “Qiaodan”. Qiaodan filed trademark applications for “ ” and “QIAO DAN”, which were registered in 1998. Qiaodan Sports have been using the “Qiaodan” and “ ” brands since 2000.

In February 2012, just as Qiaodan Sports were set to debut on the Shanghai stock market, Michael Jordan cried foul and commenced proceedings against Qiaodan Sports for unauthorised use of his name. On 26 March 2013, Qiaodan Sports threw the ball back into Michael Jordan’s court and countersued him at the Quanzhou City Intermediate People’s Court in Fujian, alleging that the above lawsuit has tarnished its reputation and thwarted its plan for an IPO.

While Chinese law generally protects parties who hold registrations and who file early for them, this does not mean that it is open season to register the names of famous people, even if they do not have registered trademarks. Chinese law protects the right of personal name under

Article 99 of (the General Principle of Civil Law) and prohibits infringement of the naming rights of individuals under Article 2 of (the Torts Liabilities Law). These principles are also reflected in Article 31 of (the Trademarks Law), which provides that an individual’s name rights shall be protected as a prior legitimate right.

To slam-dunk his naming rights claim, Michael Jordan needs to establish that:

1. He is a famous public figure and his fame under his Chinese name preceded Qiaodan Sports’ trademarks;

2. Qiaodan Sports has acted in bad faith by intentionally using his Chinese name or other personal attributes without his permission; and

3. The use of his Chinese name or other personal attributes has caused confusion among consumers who associate Qiaodan Sports or their products with him.

Meanwhile, the National People’s Congress have made recommendations to the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council for amendment to (the Trademarks Law) in order to give additional protection to the naming rights of individuals. Whether these recommendations are adopted or not, foreign celebrities should not assume that their name rights extend to Chinese equivalents, such as “ ” or the pinyin representation of their names, such as “Qiaodan.” The primary lesson of these cases is that, as well as registering their names in Latin characters, celebrities should, at an early stage, invest time and money in registering the Chinese equivalent of their names in order to forestall third parties in China from registering it before they do.

CHINA: NAMING RIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS DISPUTES BETWEEN MICHAEL JORDAN AND QIAODAN SPORTS

By Ed Chatterton and Ann Cheung (Hong Kong)

www.dlapiper.com | 05

Trademarks can be an extremely important item of property for a brand to securitize. We recently spoke to colleagues in France, Hong Kong, the United States, Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, the UK and Dubai about the rules and restrictions around taking security in their jurisdictions. In this article, we set out a snapshot of our colleagues’ responses. A full multijurisdictional comparison will be released by the DLA Piper Fashion, Retail and Design group in the near future.

SECURITIZING TRADEMARKS A CROSS-BORDER PERSPECTIVEMary Mullen and Kokyee Ng (London)

Q. Is it possible to securitize registered trademarks in your jurisdiction?

Q. Is it possible to securitize unregistered trademarks and future rights?

A. [United Kingdom]: It is possible to take a charge over or assign unregistered trademarks; however, this does not usually occur in practice because unregistered marks are inextricably linked with the brand owner’s business and the goodwill associated with that business. Therefore, the charge would need to be taken over the entire business. This is not practical or desirable from the lender or brand owner’s perspective.

A. [United States]: The answer is yes, for pending use-based trademark applications, and common law unregistered marks. The grant must include the goodwill along with the trademark. But the answer is no for pending intent-to-use basis trademarks. Note that granting a present security interest in a pending intent-to-use basis trademark application will void the trademark application altogether and result in a loss of rights. This is because an intent-to-use trademark application may not be assigned until after proof of use has been filed with the USPTO (with an exception only for assignments to a successor to the business of the applicant, or a portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing).

Q. Is it necessary to record the interest at the relevant registry?

A. [Netherlands]: It is necessary to record a security interest with the registry in order to put third parties with subsequent interests in the trademarks on notice of the earliest existing right. This is not an obligation, however, and parties may choose not to register a security.

Q. Is there a specific period of time in which the security must be registered?

Q. What are the formalities involved in registering an interest?

A. [France]: In order to record the transaction with the French Trademark Office, you must complete a specific form. You must also attach copies of the following documents in hard copy: (a) a copy of the transaction deed signed by both parties; (b) a translation of the deed in French; (c) where the interest is granted over business assets: the recordation certificate that has been delivered by the Registry of the Commercial Court; (d) power of attorney. The transaction document will not be treated

A. [Australia]: There is no specific period under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (‘the TM Act’). Under the Personal Properties Security Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the PPSA’), where two equally ranking security interests exist, the first to register its security interest will have priority over subsequent equal security interests. Therefore, it is prudent to register the security as soon as possible; otherwise priority may be compromised.

A. [Dubai]: No, but the cost of doing so increases if the security is not registered within three months.

A. [All] Yes.

A. [Sweden]: Yes. Unless the agreement (which grants the interest) is recorded with the relevant registry, the security is not valid against third parties with a subsequent interest in the trademarks.

A. [United States]: It is necessary to record the interest by filing a financing statement with the Secretary of State of the state in which the borrower is organized in order to perfect a security interest. It is not necessary to record the interest at the USPTO; however, if recorded, the statement gives third parties notification of equitable interests relevant to the ownership of the trademark.

06 | Law à la Mode

as confidential, but it is possible to attach a copy in which sensitive information is redacted, providing that the following information is included: names of the parties, addresses, legal status, signatures and trademarks over which the security is taken.

A. [Dubai]: Application for registration of a mortgage of a mark must be made on a specified form and can be made by the mortgagee or his attorney. Proof of the granting of the interest must be provided in the form of a legalised copy of the security interest agreement. When such documents are not in Arabic, a legalised translation must be prepared before filing. If the application is being filed by a representative of the mortgagee, a power of attorney will be required. The mortgage of a mark must be announced in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers, the costs of which are borne by the applicant mortgagee. An application to register the security interest must be made on the prescribed form.

or remove the trademark registration (or the claimed interest record), and to allow the claimed interest holder time to take appropriate preventative action. A security interest registered on the PPSR has two main benefits for a secured party. First, it defines the priority status the security interest has relative to other security interests in the collateral. Second, it ensures their security interest survives the bankruptcy or insolvency of the grantor, the person that receives assistance to acquire the collateral.

Q. How long does the recordal process take,on average?

A. [France]: The standard procedure takes approximately two to four months. If the accelerated procedure is used it will take approximately ten days.

Q. What are the advantages of registering a security interest over a trademark?

Q. Do both parties need to sign any recordal form or can the individual/company sign on behalf of both parties?

Q. Are there any disadvantages of registering a security interest over a trademark?

A. [Sweden]: The applicant must submit the agreement (which grants the interest) to the Swedish Patent and Registration Office. This agreement must be signed by authorized representatives of both parties. The recordal application itself need not be signed by both parties, and may be submitted by either the trademark holder or the person who has been granted the interest. Note that the applicant must be able to verify that the person granting the interest is the rightful holder of the trademark.

A. [Netherlands]: The public record of the security could be a disadvantage where the existence of the security is commercially sensitive and the parties would rather that it be kept confidential. In order to make the security rank ahead of later third party securities, the deed must be filed at the Benelux trademark register. The register does not make the deed of security itself publically available, however, it will show who has vested the deed and when.

A. [Dubai]: The process of registering the security interest can be time-consuming and expensive. Further, a similar process must be followed to remove the security interest.

A. [Hong Kong]: It is the responsibility of an assignee or licensee to inspect the register before security is registered. The registry will not notify a party holding a security interest in the event that the owner transfers its mark or a mark lapses. Even if the document creating the security includes an obligation not to assign the trademark without notice to the security holder, this only creates a contractual right to sue and would not defeat a claim by a third party without notice of the original security interest. Notification depends upon the agreement between the parties creating the security and the transfer agreement, if it is made subject to the security interest.A. [Hong Kong]: Registration provides protection to the

security holder against subsequent interests over the mark, held by third parties. Registration of the particulars of a security interest on the register is deemed notice of the interest to persons searching the register.

A. [Australia]: Registration under the TM Act requires the Registrar of Trade Marks to notify the claimed interest holder of any requests to assign, amend, cancel, revoke

Q. Will the party with the security interest be notified if the trademark proprietor transfers the mark or if the mark lapses?

With thanks to Karine Disdier-Mikus (France); Heather Dunn and Shannon Mo (United States); Melinda Upton, Rohan Singh and Tessa Kelman (Australia); Edward Chatterton and Jack Randles (Hong Kong); Mathias Berggren and Christopher Büller (Sweden)1; Carja Mastenbroek (Netherlands); Elen Williams and Katie Withers (Dubai); and Siân Croxon (United Kingdom).

1 DLA Nordic is a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of independent law firms with exclusive agreements with DLA Piper – www.dlanordic.com

www.dlapiper.com | 07

By Pavel Arievich (Moscow) and Natalia Pakhomovska (Kiev)

Retailers entering a new market need to take into account a broad range of commercial and legal issues, including branding. This article analyses some of the considerations for entrants to the Russian or Ukrainian retail market.

BRAND PROTECTION IN RUSSIA

As is the case with most jurisdictions, an entrant to the Russian market must make sure that trademark protection for all commercially meaningful designations is taken care of well in advance. In Russia, trademark protection is granted on a first-to-file basis and does not stem from mere use; it is important to file all key designations, referencing appropriate goods and services, with the Russian Trademark Office as trademark applications. It is not generally advisable to use any unregistered trademarks on the market (at least, until applications for such marks have been filed, trademark searches have been carried out and there is a great degree of assurance that no senior third-party rights could be violated by such use).

It is good practice to protect different types of marks by trademark registrations (and even protect their variations to the extent practical). For fashion goods, it is especially important to thoughtfully select the appropriate goods and services, so proper ranges of products are well covered.

If a certain mark is intended to be used in a point-of-sales context (such as for stores or boutiques), it is worthwhile to include by the respective trademark application not only goods, but promotion/sales and similar services as such. There is also some degree of Russian specifics in that, under the laws of many Russian regions (including Moscow and St.-Petersburg), the signboards on point–of-sales materials

(including brand names for stores or boutiques) must be accompanied by Russian transliteration. It may be advisable to also consider registering as trademarks Russian variations of key brands.

Another a good idea is to consider protective registrations (covering collateral goods for important brands or additional brands not yet on the market). However, it is worth bearing in mind that a trademark registration is vulnerable to cancellation upon an action filed through the Russian courts by any interested party, if the mark is not used within a three-year consecutive period following its registration.

Another issue of possible importance for fashion brands is protection of non-traditional trademarks (such as scents for perfumes). Russian law does not contain an exhaustive list of types of designations for protection and generally allows for non-traditional mark filings. However the practice of local protection of such non-traditional marks has so far been very rare; the authorities’ approach to such registrations has yet to be widely tested.

BRAND PROTECTION IN UKRAINE

As a starting point, an entrant to the Ukrainian market must obtain trademark protection for key designations which make up the brand identity. The trademark registration is of greatest importance given the fact that trademark protection is granted in Ukraine (as in Russia) on a first-to-file basis, and these trademark rights arise from registration, not from use of a particular designation. Ukraine is a party both to the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol, so protection can be obtained either under Ukrainian national or international procedures.

EMERGING FASHION MARKETS IP LESSONS

08 | Law à la Mode

Ukrainian legislation does not provide for an exhaustive list of signs that can be a subject of a trademark registration. In practice, most applications are for words, titles, numerals, images, figures, their combinations or three-dimensional signs. Non-traditional marks (such as sounds, 3D objects, colours or combination of colours, fragrances) are allowed to be registered as trademarks provided there is a technical possibility to record them in the national trademark register and to publish information on their registration. At the same time, the practice of registration of non-traditional objects in the Ukraine is very limited, which makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions on the registrability of most types of non-traditional marks.

As a practical matter, it is important to note that most advertising vendors in the Ukraine will accept advertising for distribution only if a designation contained in such advertising is registered as a trademark (this especially applies to outdoor and TV advertising) or at least filed for trademark registration. Therefore, it is important to take this issue into account when planning advertising campaigns.

Another issue of commercial importance is that an entrant to the Ukrainian market will be able to benefit from the “.ua” domain name delegation, which is a country top-level domain, only after the respective designation has obtained trademark protection. Otherwise, the domain registrar will refuse t delegation of the respective .ua domain. At the same time, delegation of sub-level domains (e.g. “com.ua” or “kiev.ua”) does not require a trademark registration.

OTHER FORMS OF IP PROTECTION IN FASHION BRANDS – RUSSIA

Since Russia is a signatory to the most prominent worldwide copyright treaties, it generally accords copyright protection to works of art created abroad. This gives extra protection to various works of design and accessories applicable to the fashion industry, because in most cases those would be protected by copyright. That said, unlawful copying is not always easy to qualify as such, and the practice of copyright disputes in this area is not well developed.

Another potential type of IP protection for fashion brands is legal protection for fashion brands industrial designs (analogous to “design rights” in many jurisdictions). Such protection is often costly, lasts 15 years (with the possibility of a one-time renewal for the additional term of no more than 10 years) and does not always adequately protect all features of the design from copying; hence it must be carefully considered in each particular case.

OTHER FORMS OF IP PROTECTION FOR FASHION BRANDS – UKRAINE

In addition to trademark protection, industrial design rights also have an important role to play in fashion/retail industry in Ukraine. Such objects as shape, drawing, hue or their combinations can be filed for registration as industrial designs in Ukraine. The rights to an industrial design are confirmed by a patent. Protection for industrial designs is granted for a ten-year period, with the possibility of renewal for up to five years.

Finally, in order to prevent the illegal import and export of counterfeits across the Ukrainian border, an entrant to the Ukrainian fashion/retail market should register its intellectual property objects (particularly trademarks) with the Ukrainian Customs Register of Intellectual Property Objects.

www.dlapiper.com | 09

BROOKS BROTHERS OUTFOxEDBy Charles Harvey and Rebecca Kay (London)

A distinctive fox and boot logo that could be found on the shoes of Winston Churchill and Lord Mountbatten has sparked an English High Court battle between rival shoe retailers.

BACKGROUND

The famous fox and boot logo was first used by Peal & Co, an English bootmaker. In 1964, Peal & Co sold the goodwill of its business and the use of its trademark to Brooks Brothers UK Limited (a subsidiary of the well-known US menswear group) and in 1965 it ceased trading.

Following the demise of the Peal & Co business, W.S Foster & Son Limited (a shoe retailer on London’s Jermyn Street), recruited an employee of Peal & Co and (apparently at the employee’s suggestion) commenced its own use of the fox and boot logo.

In 2005, Brooks Brothers opened a number of UK stores. Having realized that some of Brooks Brothers’ shoes featured the fox and boot logo, W.S Foster brought proceedings against Brooks Brothers before the UK High Court.

CLAIM OF PASSING OFF

W.S Foster brought its claim under the tort of passing off, an English law concept which allows retailers to preclude competitors from “passing off” goodwill associated with the retailer (such as in a brand) as their own. W.S Foster argued that the fox and boot logo was easily recognisable

and that their customers would associate the logo with their brand. The High Court agreed, finding that that it was highly likely that those who saw the logo on Brooks Brothers’ goods would assume that either they were manufactured by W.S Foster, or that the logo was connected to the company in some way. This was notwithstanding the fact W.S Foster traded from Jermyn Street, since their customers in fact came from over 70 countries.

Brooks Brothers UK Limited tried to defend itself on the grounds the logo was a part of “common ancestry”, and that fact they had a close business connection with Peal & Co gave them concurrent goodwill. However, the decision went against Brooks Brothers, with the court finding that Peal & Co had abandoned its business, including its goodwill, when it ceased to trade. Moreover, Brooks Brothers had, through its inactivity prior to 2005, failed to take steps to preserve that goodwill. As a result, the use by Brooks Brothers of the fox and boot logo amounted to passing off.

The decision demonstrates that, while often regarded as a tricky cause of action to bring successfully, the English law of passing off is very much alive and kicking, providing an important remedy for owners of unregistered brands.

10 | Law à la Mode

THE RETAIL WORLD SINCE INTA 2012By Ruth Hoy and Rebecca Kay (London)

It has been a busy year for the DLA Piper Fashion, Retail and Design group since the INTA 2012 Annual Meeting. Our lawyers have advised retail clients around the world on everything from design right litigation, brand protection and advertising campaigns to supply chain contracts, restructuring solutions and employment issues. We also hosted events for retail clients and set up a number of pro-bono initiatives to share our experience with the industry. Here is just a taste of what we’ve been up to.

CENTRAL SAINT MARTINS – Summer 2012 saw the start of our pro bono project with the School of Fashion and Textiles at London’s Central Saint Martins College of Arts and Design. Through the relationship, we are providing training to students on navigating the intellectual property and commercial law landscape. The project is a fantastic way to help the fashion stars of the future.

RETAIL BRUNCH AT MIPIM – On 13 March 2013, DLA Piper hosted The Retail Brunch at MIPIM, the world’s leading real estate conference. The event was very well attended and provided an excellent opportunity to network with international investors and developers and to reinforce our commitment to the retail sector.

SKY BUSINESS NEWS – In July 2012, Sydney-based IPT partner Melinda Upton was interviewed live on Sky Business News, commenting on the growth of online retail in Australia and the legal considerations for established bricks and mortar retailers when taking their business online and accessing cross-jurisdictional markets.

NEWGEN MEN – Autumn 2012 saw the announcement of our exciting pro bono partnership with the British Fashion Council. Led by Ruth Hoy and Rebecca Kay (London), DLA Piper is providing pro bono legal and commercial advice to the eight recipients of the British Fashion Council’s NEWGEN MEN initiative (sponsored by TOPMAN). The aim of the NEWGEN MEN initiative is to assist emerging designers in growing their business and in helping to raise their profile through designer business support and showcasing opportunities at London Collections: Men.

DRINKS RECEPTION – In November 2012, members of the London Intellectual Property and Technology, Real Estate, Finance, Restructuring and Corporate groups hosted retail industry drinks at Vanilla club in London’s West End. The event was a great way to way to thank the clients, investors, industry organizations and press with whom we have worked over 2012.

OWN-IT – DLA Piper is an official supporter of Own-It, an intellectual property advice, information and resource center for the UK creative sector. In the last few months we have given webinars and training sessions on topics such as “Building a fashion brand: the essentials” and “What contracts do I need for my fashion business?”

IAF – This year, DLA Piper joined the International Apparel Federation (IAF), an apparel industry federation founded in 1972 in Williamsburg (US) and headquartered in the Netherlands. The next IAF convention (at which we will be a guest speaker) will be held in Shanghai in September 2013.

WHAT’S NExT? On 20 May 2013, DLA Piper’s Fashion, Retail and Design team is hosting a seminar at the Four Seasons Hotel in Milan, which will give an insight into the legal issues surrounding the global expansion of retail brands. DLA Piper professionals from the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East will be joined by a distinguished panel from leading international fashion brands. If you would like to attend this event, please email fashion@dlapiper.com.

www.dlapiper.com | 11

DLA Piper is a global law firm operating through various separate and distinct legal entities.Further details of these entities can be found at www.dlapiper.com

Copyright © 2013 DLA Piper. All rights reserved. | MAY13 | 2552235

If you have finished with this document, please pass it on to other interested parties or recycle it, thank you.

www.dlapiper.com fashion@dlapiper.com

Ruth Hoy London

Giangiacomo Olivi Milan

The Global Co-Chairs of our Fashion, Retail and Design Group wish you a very successful INTA Annual Meeting

Giangiacomo is based in our Milan office. He has extensive experience in fashion-related matters, advising leading Italian and international clients.

Chambers & Partners Europe and a number of other client surveys have identified Giangiacomo as a leading individual. He also won the Top Legal 2011 Lawyer of the Year Award for TMT.

Ruth is based in our London office. She advises our fashion clients on a range of intellectual property issues including trademarks and design rights. Chambers & Partners describes Ruth as commanding “a great level of expertise in trade mark and copyright matters. She impresses sources with her “technical prowess and first rate commercial acumen.””

AUSTRALIABrisbaneCanberraMelbournePerthSydney

AUSTRIAVienna

BAHRAINManama

BELGIUMAntwerpBrussels

BRAZILSão Paulo

CHINABeijingHong KongShanghai

CZECH REPUBLICPrague

FRANCEParis

GEORGIATbilisi

GERMANYBerlinCologneFrankfurtHamburgMunich

HUNGARYBudapest

ITALYMilanRome

JAPANTokyo

KUWAITKuwait City

MEXICOMexico City

NETHERLANDSAmsterdam

NORWAYOslo

OMANMuscat

POLANDWarsaw

GHANAAccra

IRELANDDublin

KENYANairobi

MAURITIUSPort Louis

MONGOLIAUlaanbaatar

NEW ZEALANDAuckland Wellington

QATARDoha

ROMANIABucharest

RUSSIAMoscowSt. Petersburg

SAUDI ARABIARiyadh

SINGAPORESingapore

SLOVAK REPUBLICBratislava

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINASarajevo

BOTSWANAGabarone

CROATIAZagreb

DENMARKCopenhagen

EGYPTCairo

ETHIOPIAAddis Ababa

DLA PIPER RELATIONSHIP FIRMS

SOUTH KOREASeoul

SPAINMadrid

THAILANDBangkok

TURKEYIstanbul

UKRAINEKyivUNITED ARAB EMIRATESAbu DhabiDubai

UNITED KINGDOMBirminghamEdinburghLeedsLiverpoolLondonManchesterShef�eld

UNITED STATESAlbanyAtlantaAtlantic CityAustin

PORTUGALLisbon

RWANDAKigali

SOUTH AFRICACape TownJohannesburg

SWEDENStockholm

TANZANIADar es SalaamMwanza

BaltimoreBostonChicagoDallasFlorham ParkHoustonLos AngelesLa JollaMiamiMinneapolisNew JerseyNew YorkNorthern Virginia

PhiladelphiaPhoenixRaleighSacramentoSan DiegoSan FranciscoSeattleSilicon ValleyTampaWashington, DCWilmington

TURKEYAnkara

UGANDAKampala

VENEZUELACaracas

ZAMBIALusaka

This document is provided to you as a courtesy, and it does not establish a client relationship between DLA Piper and you, or any other person or entity that receives it. It is a general reference document and should not be relied upon as legal advice. The application and effect of any law or regulation upon a particular situation can vary depending upon the specific facts and circumstances, and so you should consult with a lawyer regarding the impact in any particular instance.

DLA Piper and the other contributing law firms accept no liability for errors or omissions appearing in the document and, in addition, DLA Piper accepts no liability at all for the content provided by the other contributing law firms. Please note that privacy and information law is dynamic, and the legal regime in the countries surveyed could change. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form without the prior consent of DLA Piper.