Cult streetwear/skatewear brand Supreme has dropped the $10 million lawsuit that it filed against Married to the Mob. Supreme’s motion for voluntary dismissal and the court’s subsequent approval comes just 3 months month after Supreme’s corporate entity Chapter 4 Corp. filed against Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney in a trademark infringement and dilution lawsuit that stems from the latter’s sale of t-shirts emblazoned with a stylized version of the words “Supreme Bitch,” and a series of trademark applications for registration that McSweeney subsequently filed for the “Supreme Bitch” logo, which closely mirrors Supreme’s famed box logo.

Within a week for McSweeney filing a since-abandoned trademark application for registration for a logo featuring the words “Supreme Bitch” written in white inside a red rectangle for use on “hats and shirts” on March 1, 2013, Chapter 4 Corp. filed suit with the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York against McSweeney and the Married to the Mob brand, setting out claims of trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition and false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and common law trademark infringement, among others, and arguing that not only were Married to the Mob’s wares likely to confuse consumers, McSweeney was “trying to build her whole brand by piggybacking off Supreme.”

In response to the suit, which would ultimately settle within a matter of months, McSweeney had some choice comments for Supreme and its founder James Jebbia, asserting, “Unlike some companies that blatantly rip-off other brand logos, Married To The Mob” – which McSweeney launched in 2004 – “has always had its own identity and aesthetic by being an extension of my life experiences.” In a formal response to Chapter 4’s complaint, McSweeney and Married to the Mob denied the majority of Chapter 4’s assertions, and set out an array of affirmative defenses, arguing, among other things, that the “Supreme Bitch” design is a parody, and thus, shielded from trademark infringement and dilution liability. A parody of what exactly? According to their answer, McSweeney and Married to the Mob argued that the “Supreme Bitch” logo and t-shirt “originated as a criticism and parody of the male-dominated and often misogynistic skate culture and Supreme brand.”

In addition to the affirmative defenses, McSweeney has asked the court to declare that her “Supreme Bitch” logo which has been spotted on singer Rihanna and model Cara Delevingne, among other celebs – is, in fact, non-infringing.

While the terms of the parties’ settlement are confidential, it appears from Married to the Mob’s website that it may have agreed to cease its sales of any the box logo-looking “Supreme Bitch” graphic. As of the time of publication, the New York-based brand’s site was devoid of any “Supreme Bitch” wares in the classic bold red type.

The battle between rival luxury brands, LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton and Hermès, just got even more complex. LVMH filed new charges this week against an unidentified Hermès executive for comments made that LVMH had conducted “fraudulent” activity. The newest claim stems from statements that Hermès CEO Patrick Thomas’ made earlier this week at an annual meeting. He accused LVMH of either acting “fraudulently” or being “so disorganised” for not knowing how it came to obtain its initial 17.1 per cent stake. “I’ll let you decide,” he concluded.

LVMH vice president, Pierre Godé, was quoted as confirming the new charges in French newspaper Le Figaro yesterday, saying that they had filed the suit “following what was said by the manager.”

LVMH’s latest lawsuit comes on the heels of a hearing in front of France’s regulation authority, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers’ sanctions committee, which recommended that LVMH be fined roughly $13 million forconcealing its gradual acquisition of Hermès, in violation of French financial reporting regulations. A final decision will be made by the committee by July 31.

Chanel has been barred from registering the word “JERSEY” as a trademark. The Paris-based design house filed a trademark application for registration with the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office in 2011 for “JERSEY,” which would extend to Class 3 (cosmetics, perfumes, nail polishes, etc.), and refers to a line of cosmetics (namely) a Chanel fragrance marketed under the name. Turns out, Jersey (a British island off the coast of Normandy, France) is what is standing between Chanel and the trademark.

The UK Intellectual Property Office’s Judi Pike, who decided the case, backed the Jersey (the Island) and rejected the application. Pike held that JERSEY “consists exclusively of a sign or indication of the geographical origin of the category of goods.” In addition to losing the case, Chanel has to pay  the States of Jersey $3370 to cover costs and a small award stemming from evidence filing. Since the decision, Chanel has filed an application for “JERSEY CHANEL,” which was published for opposition last week.

According to the BBC, Chanel’s claim was rejected by the UK Intellectual Property Office following opposition from the government of Jersey – which asserted that the trademark would imply that the fragrance was made on the island. The fragrance, part of the Les Exclusifs de Chanel collection, is manufactured in France. 

“We are not objecting to the name being used – it will be beneficial to the island. What we object to is the use of the name Jersey registered as a trademark,” said Darren Scott, from the island’s Economic Development Department.

In response, Chanel issued a statement, saying: “Like all major brands, Chanel routinely registers as trademarks the names of its products in order to protect against copies. Chanel applied to register the name Jersey as a trademark for fragrance in numerous countries around the world. The name Jersey was chosen as a tribute to Coco Chanel’s revolutionary use of jersey fabric. Chanel never wanted to prevent others from using ‘Jersey’ on products to indicate they were made in Jersey or contain ingredients originating from Jersey.”

LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton chairman and CEO Bernard Arnault spoke out this week at LVMH’s annual general meeting in Paris regarding the ongoing battle between the company and Hermès. According to WWD, “with LVMH facing scrutiny about whether it respected market rules in amassing a 22.6 percent stake in Hermès,  Arnault claims he came into the holding unexpectedly.” Arnault further reiterated that “his intentions toward Hermès were peaceful and he did not plan to increase his stake in the family-controlled firm.”

This is especially interesting, as the two parties are currently involved in rival lawsuits. Last year, Hermès launched a criminal complaint against LVMH, accusing the luxury conglomerate of insider trading, collusion and manipulating stock prices (stemming from LVMH’s purchase of Hermès shares in 2010).

In October 2010, LVMH announced (to much surprise) that it had “amassed a 17.1 percent stake in Hermès via cash-settled equity swaps that allowed it to circumvent the usual regulations requiring firms to declare share purchases.” As of Dec. 31 last year, it had raised its stake to 22.6 percent. In response to Hermès’ suit, LVMH, filed suit against Hermès for slander, blackmail and unfair competition.

The French court of appeals ruled late last week in Christian Louboutin’s case against Spanish fast-fashion retailer, Zara. Paris-based Louboutin, which has been aggressively policing unauthorized uses of its trademark red sole in recent years (most notably filing suit against Yves Saint Laurent in a New York federal court in April 2011), filed a trademark suit against Zara. The Cour de Cassation upheld the lower court’s June 2011 ruling that Louboutin’s trademark registration was too vague to warrant a win for the footwear brand, as it lacked a specific Pantone color reference for the “red” soles and further, that there is no proven risk of consumer confusion between the two brands and their shoes.

With the foregoing in mind, the court sided with Zara, and ordered Louboutin to pay the fast fashion brand’s $3,600 legal fees. On the heels of the court’s decision, a representative for Louboutin released a statement, saying, “Much of the discussion either implies or states that through this ruling we have lost our rights to our world famous Red Sole Trademark. We would like to clarify that what has been disputed and canceled is only one French registration of said Red sole Trademark. Christian Louboutin continues to own valid and enforceable trademark rights in its Red Sole Trademark, including in France itself as well as throughout the world.” 

The rep continued on to note that to date, “A number of court decisions have recognised the strong association between the Christian Louboutin brand and the red sole trademark, including in France. Christian Louboutin will continue to protect and enforce its rights to its Red Sole Trademark, which has been its iconic signature for the past 20 years. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the people who continually show support to our brand.”