One of the most – if not the most – sought-after Cartier bracelet styles is held together by two little screws that, when tightened, secure the precious metal bangle to the wearer’s wrist. According to the French jewelry house, this gilded bit of bondage is meant “to sanctify inseparable love.” Practically speaking, given the price tags associated with these designs, which now start at several thousand dollars and climb considerably higher, they also “signify high incomes,” as Adweek characterized the 1970s status symbol in its account of the bracelet’s evolution into a millennial must-have.
When the Love bracelet was first released by Cartier in 1969, the creation of Italian-born American jewelry designer Aldo Cipullo swiftly became an intriguing purchase for well-to-do consumers, helped by its association with high-profile couples, including Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, and Sophia Loren and Carlo Ponti. When Revlon executive Frank Shields – father of actress Brooke Shields – exchanged Love bracelets with his second wife, Diana Lippert, instead of rings in 1970, the choice prompted the question in the press: “Will the Love bracelet replace the wedding band?” as The Adventurine recalls. Even the Duke and Duchess of Windsor reportedly exchanged Love bracelets in the 1970s.
Originally priced at $250 and reportedly sold only to couples, the Love bracelet’s design remains relatively unchanged more than 50 years later, although Cartier now offers versions in yellow, rose, and white gold, including diamond-encrusted models that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The bracelets are also sold individually, and Cartier has introduced slimmer versions and other variations on the original design.
As for the classic bracelet itself, with its two C-shaped halves that come together and are secured using a miniature screwdriver, the fastening mechanism remains a defining feature. In recent years, the design has continued to attract high-profile wearers, introducing Cipullo’s creation to new generations of consumers.
Love and Legal Protections
Given the staying power of the Love bracelet, and Cartier’s practice of aggressively protecting its designs, the jewelry house has amassed an array of trademark rights in connection with the bracelet. These protections enable Cartier to challenge allegedly infringing products, from inexpensive counterfeits offered by online sellers to competing jewelry designs that incorporate elements of the Love bracelet’s distinctive appearance.
Much of Cartier’s protection is grounded in trade dress, a subset of trademark law that can extend to the overall appearance or configuration of a product. In the United States, product-design trade dress is protectable where it is nonfunctional and has acquired secondary meaning, such that consumers associate the design with a particular commercial source. As the Supreme Court made clear in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000), product designs cannot be inherently distinctive.
Cartier began securing federal trademark registrations for the Love bracelet decades ago. Among them is a registration issued in 1985 covering “the overall configuration of a bracelet having a series of simulated screws which encircle the goods and two real screws, which appear at the points on the bracelet where it may be opened.” Other registrations in Cartier’s historical portfolio cover particular elements of the design, including simulated screw heads embedded in jewelry.
Cartier has also obtained registrations for the LOVE and LOVE BRACELET names and related stylized marks. Together, these protections form a portfolio that extends beyond the bracelet’s overall appearance to particular design features and branding associated with the collection.
The scope of those rights is not unlimited. Trademark law does not give Cartier exclusive rights to screws as a design concept or to functional fastening mechanisms. Nor does ownership of a registration necessarily establish that every competing bracelet featuring screw motifs infringes Cartier’s rights. Any infringement claim would depend on the particular mark or trade dress asserted, the allegedly infringing use, and the applicable legal standards.
Still, the longstanding use of the Love bracelet’s recognizable design provides a basis for Cartier to claim that consumers associate its appearance with a single source. Unlike time-limited patent protection, trademark rights can potentially continue indefinitely, provided the relevant requirements for protection and maintenance are satisfied.
Cartier: A Vigilant Defender
Far from merely accumulating registrations, Cartier has actively sought to enforce its trademark rights. Its efforts have encompassed conventional infringement and counterfeiting claims, disputes over third-party trademark applications, and litigation aimed at restricting access to websites selling counterfeit goods.
In early 2014, for instance, Cartier took on the World Gold Council in an attempt to prevent the gold industry’s market development organization from federally registering LOVEGOLD trademarks. In an opposition before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), Cartier argued that the proposed marks were confusingly similar in appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression to its LOVE marks and were likely to cause confusion when used in connection with jewelry. The proceedings continued into 2015 before Cartier withdrew its opposition. The LOVEGOLD applications subsequently proceeded to registration. The withdrawal itself does not establish the terms of any agreement between the parties or resolve the merits of Cartier’s likelihood-of-confusion allegations.
Meanwhile, Cartier and other jewelry and watch brands owned by its parent company, Richemont, were pursuing a different form of trademark enforcement in the United Kingdom. The companies sought injunctions requiring major internet service providers (ISPs), including BT, Virgin Media, Sky, TalkTalk, and EE, to block access to websites advertising and selling counterfeit products. The High Court granted the requested blocking orders in 2014, relying on section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The Court of Appeal upheld the court’s jurisdiction to grant such relief in 2016, rejecting the ISPs’ argument that the absence of an express statutory provision for trademark-related website blocking prevented the court from issuing the orders.
The litigation subsequently reached the UK Supreme Court, which addressed a narrower question: who should bear the costs of implementing the blocking orders?
In Cartier International AG v. British Telecommunications plc, [2018] UKSC 28, the Supreme Court ruled that the rights holders should indemnify the ISPs for specified reasonable costs associated with complying with the orders. The court distinguished the position of innocent intermediaries from that of the third parties responsible for the underlying infringement. It did not disturb the lower courts’ conclusions concerning the availability of website-blocking injunctions.
The proceedings gave Cartier and the other Richemont brands a means of pursuing relief against the online channels through which counterfeit goods reached consumers, while establishing limits on the costs that could be imposed on the intermediaries required to implement that relief.
The Business of Protecting an Icon
The Love bracelet’s continued popularity has been accompanied by an expansion of the collection. Cartier now offers the design in different widths and gold alloys, with and without diamonds, alongside variations that depart from the original two-part construction. Yet the screw motif remains a recurring feature. It appears across the collection, giving Cartier a recognizable design element that can be carried into new products while maintaining an association with the original bracelet.
That consistency also has implications for trademark protection. In the context of product-design trade dress, evidence that consumers recognize particular design features as identifying a single commercial source can support a claim of acquired distinctiveness. Cartier’s longstanding use of the Love bracelet design, together with its marketing and enforcement efforts, is relevant to that inquiry, although the existence and scope of protectable rights must be assessed in relation to the particular design asserted.
For luxury brands, this distinction between design protection and trademark protection matters. Patents and registered designs provide rights for limited periods, while trademark protection can endure as long as the applicable legal requirements continue to be met. A recognizable product configuration may therefore remain eligible for trademark protection long after other forms of design protection have expired.
Cartier’s Love bracelet offers an example of that approach. More than five decades after Aldo Cipullo introduced the design, Cartier continues to sell variations on the original while relying on trademark law to challenge unauthorized uses of the features it claims as its own.
Share
