直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

Commentary

Alexander Wang Hit with $75M-Plus Infringement Suit

August 20, 2021

Intellectual Property Magazine

A job applicant filed a $75M-plus lawsuit against fashion label Alexander Wang, alleging the company “willfully and flagrantly infringed” a series of her graphical works in a video advertisement. The suit states that the applicant submitted her portfolio as part of several job application processes, as well as for an online contest. After receiving praise for her designs from an Alexander Wang talent acquisition consultant, she did not hear back from the company and was not informed that her work would be used for any purpose other than to confidentially evaluate her qualifications for the open position. Intellectual Property Magazine interviewed Finnegan partner Margaret Esquenet for her thoughts on the case.  

Margaret said:

“It’s interesting that plaintiff pleads that she submitted the materials to Alexander Wang as part of a contest entry. Many contest rules require that entrants license or assign rights in their entries to the contest sponsor. If Alexander Wang can show that the contest rules included the relevant language and that plaintiff agreed to the rules, it may have a relatively easy defense without ever being required to address the merits of the claims. If the dispute is decided on the merits, however, it is likely that Alexander Wang will argue that the plaintiff is seeking to protect a particular artistic style or concept and not a specific expression. This defense was successful for Starbucks in Hayuk v Starbucks Corp., where under arguably similar facts the court dismissed Hayuk’s complaint, holding that copying an artistic style, elements, and ideas was insufficient to sustain a copyright infringement claim where there is no persuasive evidence of substantial similarity of the actual works at issue. Plaintiff will counter, however, that Alexander Wang did not merely copy an idea, but created an unauthorized infringing derivative of the specific works she submitted for the contest/job application. If the court agrees with the plaintiff that Alexander Wang simply converted her drawings to 3D figures for its videos, the court’s analysis in Hayuk will likely not save the day for Alexander Wang.”

Read “Alexander Wang Hit with $75M-Plus Infringement Suit”

Tags

apparel

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Copyright

Related Industries

Consumer Goods and Services

Consumer Products

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related News

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Summary Determination of No Violation in ITC Vehicle Space Guards Investigation for Drop Stop

October 6, 2026

Commentary

Catching Up with Hope Shimabuku

September 29, 2026

Commentary

Federal Circuit Revives Whistleblower Complaint Over VA's AI Claims-Processing Tool

September 25, 2026

Press Release

Finnegan Secures Precedential Pro Bono Federal Circuit Victory for AI Whistleblower

September 23, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Receives Top Tier Rankings in World Trademark Review’s Inaugural Copyright 1000 2026

September 23, 2026

Commentary

New Thomas Pink Womenswear Lines Strain ‘Pink’ Pact with Victoria’s Secret

September 21, 2026

Commentary

Pepsi's U.S. Trademark Dispute Could Reshape Brand Choices, Lawsuit Strategy, Lawyers Say

September 17, 2026

Commentary

Jellycat’s ‘Dupe’ Dilemma: Can IP Protect a ‘Cute’ Aesthetic?

September 16, 2026

Commentary

Bloomberg Law Q&A with Finnegan IP Lawyer Christian Hurt

September 11, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP