Skip navigation

Tag Archives: law

It’s over for fashion designer Jon Anand.

He’s been found guilty of sexually abusing would-be models.

Reuters reports on how the verdict unfolded.

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Celebrity fashion designer Anand Jon was convicted on Thursday on multiple charges of sexual assault on young would-be models.

Jon, 34, a rising designer who had dressed socialite Paris Hilton and singer Janet Jackson before his arrest last year, was found guilty on 16 criminal counts. They included lewd acts on a child and involved assaults between 2001 and 2007 against nine aspiring models aged between 14 and 21.

Jon was acquitted of four other charges. The Los Angeles Superior Court jury could not reach a verdict on a further three counts.

Jon, whose full name is Anand Jon Alexander, denied the charges and his lawyers argued that the young women made up their stories. He is being investigated on similar charges in New York and Dallas.

Prosecutors said Jon lured women to Los Angeles with the promise they could work as models and then attacked them.

Sentencing is scheduled for January 13.

The Indian-born designer was profiled on the TV show “America’s Next Top Model” in 2003 and selected by Newsweek as one of the world’s most successful South Asians in 2004.

(Reporting by Jill Serjeant, editing by Alan Elsner)

 

I love it when fakesters pay!

Louis Vuitton Malletier (the people who make LV stuff) just won $3,000,000 in statutory damages and over $500,000 in attorney’s fees and expenses.

The company sued LY (not LV) USA, Inc., Marco Leather Goods Ltd., Coco USA Ltd. and the principals Chong Lam and Joyce Chan (the “Defendants”) for trademark counterfeiting.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York spared the defendants no mercy.

The lawkeepers said their failure to produce documents on sales and profits and their “many attempts to register marks closely derived from those of luxury brands…”…invites “an inference of a massive counterfeiting enterprise.”

Yaaaay for LV!

The P. Miller Designs clothing line is still in the testing phase and only available at 350 select Wal-Mart stores.

Yet already it has become the target of a lawsuit.

The plaintiff, Pepe Leans London, LLC, is suing P. Miller over the presence of a controversial logo: a circled “P.”

P. Miller claims that he legally registered a “circled-P with wings” mark through the US Patent and Trademark Office with a date of first-use of April 1, 2003.

According to Miller’s camp, the plaintiff filed their date of first-use as June 1, 2003.

The US Patent and Trademark Office recognizes the marks of both P. Miller and Pepe Jeans London as registered and unique. Both marks are public record.

We’ll see how things unfold.

Here’s an interesting one.

If you’re employed at Hollister, you’re required to wear skirts and pants above the knee.

Now a former worker is suing because she says she was fired for not complying with company policy.

Associated Press reports:

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing after a Hollister Co. store worker was allegedly fired for refusing to wear pants or a skirt above the knee, something that she says violates her religious beliefs.The EEOC filed suit Thursday on behalf of Lakettra Bennett, who is Pentacostal and formerly worked at the Hollister store at the St. Louis Galleria mall in Richmond Heights, Mo. The suit against J.M. Hollister LLC and parent company Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Inc. seeks back pay and damages.

Abercrombie & Fitch general counsel David Cupps says the company is committed to fostering diversity and inclusiveness. Cupps says he hasn’t seen the lawsuit but says he would be surprised if the company was not faithful to its policy.

The EEOC says the federal Civil Rights Act requires “reasonable accommodations” for religious beliefs.

I can’t believe this!

Totes must be out of their mind! 

Thank heavens for a legal system that still works!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. trade court on Thursday rejected an importer’s claim that differing tariff rates for men’s gloves amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination, in a case closely watched by the fashion industry.

The U.S. Court of International Trade dismissed a challenge to the tariffs by Totes-Isotoner Corp.

The court said the importer had failed to show the government intended to discriminate by gender when it set tariffs for men’s gloves that were higher than for gloves “for other persons.”