In 2018, under Alessandro Michele’s unconventional direction, the Gucci Cruise Collection took an interesting turn.

The level of recognition and reverence that Gucci has reached as a brand is seldom matched by other brands in the same echelon. This begs the question: why then would Michele debut an entire collection with the ‘wrong’ name?

While many fashion houses do go through some sort of amendment in their brand name or logo, this seems rather harsh when compared to the dropping of the ‘Yves’ from ‘Yves Saint Laurent’ in 2012 – overseen by Hedi Slimane, or the change to ‘Prada’ from ‘Fratelli Prada’ in 1978 – under the direction of Miuccia Prada, or the even more recent removal of the accented ‘é’ from the Celine logo – again under Slimane’s overture in 2018.

So, what’s the relevance of ‘Guccy’? While it arguably looks somewhat like a spelling mistake, the primitive spelling of the name is an ironic jab at the momentous presence of knock-offs that are sold in droves – both from physical retailers and online – around the world. This particular spelling of the name was incredibly popular with counterfeit retailers in the 1980s (along with ‘Channel’ and ‘Dolce & Gabbaba’).

Regardless of the good work that the Maltese Department of Customs – who, in 2017, made a record haul of nearly 20 million intercepted counterfeit items – do on a daily basis, counterfeit goods have forever been a reality. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature to find a way to attain a lesser version of the material objects that we’re so conditioned to want, which remain somewhat out of reach. As Gucci’s creative director himself once said, “Fashion is not about product; it’s about an interesting idea that you can’t resist buying into”, and it’s precisely this lack of inability to resist buying into the brand that propels the counterfeit market to these dizzying heights.

Multitude of infringements that occur every day in the fashion world

The Intellectual Property Rights (Cross-Border Measures) Act sets out the different ways in which exportation and re-exportation of goods that are in contravention of intellectual property rights can be addressed under Maltese law. This law makes it unequivocally clear that the entry into Malta of goods that have been found to be in infringement of an intellectual property right, shall be prohibited. The Act also sets out an additional layer of protection and affords the holder of an intellectual property right the ability to lodge an application with the Comptroller of Customs for action to be taken by the Customs authorities in situations where the holder of the right has alleged infringement of such right. Furthermore, the Comptroller may exercise this right ex officio without the need for a prior application by the holder of the right, when it appears prima facie that there exists the requisite infringement.

The European Commission publishes an annual report pertaining to the articles that are retained by customs officials under the suspicion that they infringe intellectual property rights. The statistics contained therein, gathered via the various member states, serve as a useful tool when assessing the manner in which these infringements affect the EU market, as well as ensuring that counter-measures are developed to tackle the problem at hand.

According to these statistics, in 2016 more than 63,000 detention cases were registered. This statistic is not exclusive to the fashion industry, but it is approximated that the clothing, footwear and accessories industries lose, on average, €26.3 billion of revenue annually from counterfeit goods.

This amount merely scratches the surface, as it does not take into consideration the mammoth statistics one would find in relation to the US or other territories across the globe.

Whether or not the faux fakes will stand the test of time remains to be seen, but what can be said is that the move helped shed some light on the multitude of infringements that occur everyday throughout the fashion world. As evidenced through the examples above, a brand’s logo needn’t be static – a mark can always be evolving. Gucci have reclaimed ‘Guccy’ from the counterfeiters and have turned it into an asset for the Company – from the 2018 Cruise Collection to the 2018 SEGA Collaboration, Guccy doesn’t seem to be going anywhere fast.

While Gucci has already taken this next step, not all companies have worked towards the safeguarding of their intellectual property rights. Without ensuring that one’s rights are enforced; these rights, and subsequently the brands attached to them, might risk losing their inherent value. There are two valid lessons to be learnt here: get advice on protecting your intellectual property – where you’re unsure, seek advice – and trademark disasters can be turned into opportunities, when given the right spin.

Emma Portelli Bonnici is a Junior Associate at Fenech & Fenech Advocates. This article is not intended to offer professional advice and you should not act upon the matters referred to in it without seeking specific advice.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.