Burberry In Danger Of Losing Rights To Signature Plaid

AppId is over the quota

It looks as though Burberry might lose their exclusive rights to their signature red, black and tan check.

The British luxury fashion house has appealed a decision made by Chinese authorities that would allow other companies to lawfully use their iconic check pattern on leather goods.

According to The Guardian, the verdict came down because Burberry has not made enough use of the Haymarket Check in China for three years.

WWD reported that back in August 2012, the Trademark Office received a complaint which challenged Burberry's right to the check for leather goods in China. The complaint was supposedly brought about by a division of the Lubida factory, an organization which Burberry had previously sued for creating counterfeit bags. Hmm, something smells a little fishy.

Fortunately, Burberry can rest easy for the moment. Until a decision is reached on the appeal, they still have sole rights to their tartan pattern. But if the court's ruling doesn't go in their favor, what will it mean for the company who has built an empire around their well-known pattern? Do you think there will be a new trademark in Burberry's future?

The pattern in question:

Fashion feuds happen more than you may think...

Loading Slideshow

In 2010, Madonna was sued by clothing company L.A. Triumph claiming she had stolen the name of their clothing line. The company sold clothes in Nordstrom since 1997.

In 2011, designer Derek Lam gave a cease-and-desist letter to Ivanka Trump accusing Trump of plagiarizing a design from his footwear line, the $780 Ayami sandal. Lam's attorneys gave Trump seven days to pull the shoe from her line. (Courtesy photos)

In 2011, Hermés sued small label Thursday Friday for selling a canvas bag with images of Birkins printed on them. Thursday Friday lost the lawsuit.

In May 2012, the showdown between Gucci and Guess over the interlocking 'G' logo reached an end in Gucci's favor. Gucci was awarded $4.66 million dollars, a reflection of the profit Guess made from the unauthorized trademark. (Courtesy photos)

This year Chanel featured cuffs in their A/W 2012 collection that looked almost exactly like crystal cuffs by Pamela Love from her fall 2011 collection. In a very classy move, Chanel decided to not produce the cuffs, telling Fashionista: "Out of respect for the concerns raised and for the artistic process generally the House has decided not to offer these bracelets for sale as part of the A/W 2012 collection." (Getty/Courtesy photos)

In June 2011, Tory Burch received $146 million in damages after she sued a Chinese fashion label called 41 cybersquatters. The "label" was illegally selling knock-off Tory Burch sandals through different websites. There were 232 domain names in total!

In 2005, a small-time designer Carmen Colle, sued Chanel for $3.7 million claiming the big-name company rejected a proposed crocheted pattern from Colle's company, World Tricot, and then used it several months later! In the end, both parties were happy with the end of the trial: Colle received a settlement, but Chanel didn't have to pay as much because Colle had created a "smear campaign."

Diane von Furstenberg got in a little bit of trouble in 2008 when her 2009 spring jacket (on the right) looked very similar to Canadian company, Mercy's (on the left). Furstenberg was horrified when she discovered this faux pas and offered to compensate the Mercy designers.

In 2010, the high-end designer sued Madden for copying their "LEGO" heels, which have been seen on Beyonce. The case was settled quietly in court.

In March 2012, MTV Style pointed out that one bag in the reality TV star's new collection of handbags was a McQueen knock-off. NOT classy Snooki... (Courtesy photos)

In 2011, the designer of the famous sexy, red-soled shoe Christian Louboutin requested a U.S. judge to stop the sale of red-soled shoes designed by Yves Saint Laurent. The judge denied the request saying, "Awarding one participant in the designer shoe market a monopoly on the color red would impermissibly hinder competition among other participants." (Courtesy photos)

In 2003, both major companies made a series of clothing emblazoned with the number "22." Hollister (affiliated with A&F) started using the number to mark the fictional year (1922) that the brand was initiated. American Eagle said that the company had used other numbers on their clothes before so they could not lay claim to the number. How ridiculous is this?

Target is set to release it's Kirna Zabete designer collaboration collection in September, but there was an accessory in Zabete's collection that looked similar to British designer Solange Azagury-Partridge's lip rings. Although there was no court case involving copyright claims, it is true that these two accessories look very similar to one another. (Courtesy photos)

In 2011, Target sold the 'Mossimo Messenger' bag in their stores which Jack McCollough and Lazaro Hernandez of Proenza Schouler argued looked too similar to their PS1 bag ($1,600 vs Target's $34.99). The designers were disappointed with Target, having previously partnered with the retailer, to which a spokesperson for Target responded: "It always has been and continues to be the policy of Target to respect the intellectual property rights of others." (Courtesy photos)

Madonna is lucky to not have a court case slapped on her claiming that one of the shoes in her new 'Truth or Dare' collection is a knock-off of Louboutin's studded stunners. (Courtesy photos)

This year, Madonna began her domination of the fashion world (ok, kind of) releasing the first product of her 'Truth or Dare' collection, the 'M' perfume. Unfortunately, an Australian artist claimed that the singer plagiarized his signature 'M' and sent her a letter, requesting the singer to stop using the symbol. (Getty photo)

Related Video

Want more? Be sure to check out HuffPost Style on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest and Instagram at @HuffPostStyle.

Subscribe

ver articulo original aqui