Friday, January 13, 2006

"Sexy Little Things" - Already Taken

A swimsuit model with Sports Illustrated was blocked from launching her own line of panties emblazoned as "sexy little things" when a judge ruled that lingerie company Victoria's Secret could sue her for trademark infringement.

US District Judge Harold Baer said that Victoria's Secret appeared to acquire priority in the trademark use of "Sexy Little Things" because it had used the label on lingerie sold online and through its retail stores and catalogues since July 28, 2004.

The judge refused a request by fashion model and actress Audrey Quock to declare that Victoria's Secret had no right to stop her from launching a line of women's underwear called "Sexy Little Things".

1 comment:

Anastasia said...

It's interesing though...I was just thinking whether using the phrase as a title in a blog post, article, story, anything, would create a drama. I suppose it's only limited to selling a product that's trademarked.

Reminds me of this soup kitchen/restuarant here on Oxford Street, Sydney, that was handed an ultimatum to change their shopfront because it 'resembled' Campbells soup even though the colouring was different, and the can didn't resemble Campbells, but it's funny how these transnational companies don't sue the estate of Andy Warhol for the same thing.