‘Copyright Troll’ Accuses Hudson Jeans Owner and More of Infringement in ‘Shakedown for Money’
California-based Star Fabrics Inc. has filed lawsuits against Amazon, Costco, Dillard’s and Centric Denim, alleging copyright infringement of the company’s fabric designs. But one attorney who follows these types of legal disputes said it appears that Star Fabrics has a long history of filing these kinds of suits against other businesses, often without merit.
“They’re serial copyright trolls,” said Bryan M. Bergman, owner of the Los Angeles-area law office of Bryan M. Bergman. “They have filed hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits based on effectively generic, floral or other sorts of patterns that they’d say are substantially similar to something they found in the marketplace. And it ends up just becoming a shakedown for money.”
More from Sourcing Journal
Michigan Legal Expert Says Lawsuit Over Target's Pride Collection 'Not Without Merit'
Sourcing at Magic: Legal Expert Talks Leveraging AI Responsibly
Jessica Simpson Sues Retailer After Asking Owner to 'Live and Let Live'
In one current suit, which was initially filed in January and amended in May, Star claims that elements of its floral patterns appear in similar patterns on apparel sold by Centric Denim (ie Buffalo Jeans, Hudson Jeans and Joe’s Jeans owner Centric Brands), Costco and Dillard’s. In June, the company also sued Amazon, alleging similar infringement claims.
Bergman said in this type of case, where a plaintiff alleges copying of elements of its design rather than an essential cut-and-paste of the original, it can be difficult to prove actual infringement.
“Typically it will fall to common sense,” he said. “Do you really see these vast similarities between the two fabrics? It’s not an easy call, and sometimes it’s not obvious when they point to very minute similarities. It’s a challenging process.”
Star Fabrics was founded in 1992 by Elias and Susan Haroni, whose son, Adir Haroni, currently runs the operation. The company operates several print divisions, including Star, Caravel and Guarisco. According to its website, it has accumulated more than 100,000 patterns in its library.
This isn’t Star Fabrics’ first legal claim of infringement. The fabric maker has sued a number of companies over the years, such as Zulily, NB Brother Corp., SW Group LLC, Papillon Eastern Imports Inc., Cost Plus, and more, usually with representation by Venice, Calif.-based law firm Doniger Burroughs.
Bergman said that typically, the goal isn’t for these suits to go to court, but rather to get companies to offer Star a monetary settlement.
“They end up settling the case on some reduced amount, effectively as a nuisance value settlement,” he said. “These companies are saying, ‘I’m going to have to spend $100,000 to $300,000 defending, so I might as well just pay these guys.’”
Bergman said cases such as these highlight a need for copyright law reform at the federal level.
“There should be some additional scrutiny before the copyright office effectively rubber stamps all of these copyrights,” he said. “They’ll register a group of fabrics at a time—they don’t do one specific fabric at a time. They’ll do a whole package of them, and as long as the copyright office sees any modicum of creativity, it gets approved. There’s not a rigorous screening process.”
Bergman said that apparel brands and retailers looking to better insulate their businesses against this type of lawsuit should work closely with their fabric suppliers to ensure they own the copyrights of their designs.
“Make sure the company that you’re buying from was actually the creator of the design,” he said. “Number two, make sure they will indemnify you if any of these lawsuits like this pop up, and number three, ensure that they’re actually solvent and they’ll honor their indemnification obligation. It’s all about trusting who you’re getting the product from.”
Bergman said that as long as copyright laws remain so lenient, companies like Star Fabrics will be able to continue to terrorize the apparel industry with the threat of litigation.
“It’s unfortunate, because it’s essentially extortion,” he said. “Hopefully at some point it will inspire some change on the regulatory side to put a stop to it.”
Rivet reached out to Centric, Dillard’s and Costco’s legal representation for comment. Amazon didn’t immediately return a request for comment.
