The challenges of luxury authentication in the secondhand resale economy

EU General Court Allows the Shape of Guerlain’s 3D lipstick Design To Be Registered As A Trade Mark

Natalia Vodianova wearing Guerlain Rouge G. Image Courtesy of Guerlain.

The General Court of the European Union has ruled in favour of the luxury brand Guerlain in its bid to register the three-dimensional shape of a lipstick design as a trademark.

Background

Guerlain, the LVMH owned luxury French perfume, cosmetics and skincare house applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for registration of a three-dimensional EU trade mark in respect of lipsticks (below). Guerlain claimed distinctive character of the aforementioned shape acquired through use.

The EUIPO Examiner found that the mark applied for lacked distinctive character and dismissed the application. Guerlain lodged an appeal with EUIPO, The Board of Appeal upheld that decision, finding that the mark did not depart sufficiently from the norms and customs of the sector.

On appeal, the General Court of the European Union (July 14th 2021) has annulled the decision of the Board of Appeal. Finding that the mark applied for has distinctive character because it departs significantly from the norm and customs of the lipstick sector.

A closer look at the assessment of the General Court

The standards for assessing the distinctive character of three-dimensional marks consisting of the shape of the product itself are no different from those applicable to other kinds of marks,” the court noted. Though the perception of the average consumer in the case of a three-dimensional marks relating to the appearance of the product itself, is inevitably not always the same as in the case of 'a word or figurative mark’ that consists of a sign independent of the appearance of the goods it designates because average consumers do not usually assume the origin of products based on their shape or that of their packaging. Therefore, it follows that when a three-dimensional mark consists of the shape of the product for which registration is sought, Only a mark which, in a significant way, diverges from the norm or from the habits of the sector and, as a result, is capable of fulfilling its essential original function is not devoid of distinctive character within the meaning of that provision

Counsel for Guerlain emphasised that ‘the aesthetically very successful aspect of the shape of the brands product the ‘novelty and originality’ as well as ‘the reception of the product. and the reaction of the press’ as indicative factors for concluding that it deviates significantly from the norm or the habits of the sector.

In response, The General Court confirmed that in assessing whether the three-dimensional trademark has distinctive character this is not based on ‘the originality’ or an underusage of the shape of the type of mark applied for in the field to which the goods and services concerned belong.  While, a three-dimensional mark consisting in the shape of the product should depart significantly from the norm or customs of the sector concerned, the mere ‘novelty of that shape’ is not sufficient (alone) in order to conclude that there is distinctiveness, since the decisive criterion is the ability of that shape to fulfill the function of indicating commercial origin.

According to the General Court the fact that the goods have a quality design does not necessarily imply that a mark consisting of the three-dimensional shape of these products allow the consumer to distinguish them from those of other companies.  However, It notes that it is not inconceivable that the aesthetic aspect of a mark consisting in the shape of the packaging of a product, may be taken into account with other factors to establish a divergence in relation to the norm and customs of a sector, provided that taking into account the aesthetic aspect of the mark applied for does not amount to an assessment of the attractiveness of the product in question or lack there-of, which is by definition subjective, but is done in accordance with the case-law with the aim of determining whether that product is capable of generating an objective and uncommon visual effect produced by the specific design of that mark in the perception of the relevant public.

Conclusively, taking into account the images put forward by Gurelein to the Board of Appeal as constituting the norm and customs of the sector concerned, the General Court found that the shape in question is uncommon for a lipstick and differs from any other shape existing on the market. The court observed, first of all, that the shape applied for is like that of “a boat hull or a baby carriage.” most of which represented cylindrical and parallelepiped lipsticks. Next, the presence of the small oval embossed shape is unusual and contributes to the uncommon appearance of the mark applied for. Finally, the fact that the lipstick represented by this mark cannot be placed upright reinforces the uncommon visual aspect of its shape.” On this basis the General Court held that the mark applied for has distinctive character – as the relevant public would be surprised by the memorable shape and will perceive it as departing significantly from the norm and customs of the lipstick sector.

This ruling holds value for fashion players. In the fashion and luxury industries logos alone often do not shape up as being the sole way to differentiate a brands product. Especially where a brand has a diverse product offering. The General courts recognition of the distinctive character of shape mark will no doubt provide hope for businesses wanting to protect distinctive design elements of their products.

Bottega Veneta's Bids at Bagging a Trademark

(Updated) Analysis and Summary coming soon…!

High Court Finds Unregistered Design Right infringement of House of CB Designs Against Oh Polly Online Fashion Retailer

High Court Finds Unregistered Design Right infringement of House of CB Designs Against Oh Polly Online Fashion Retailer

Kylie Jenner, Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez and Khloe Kardashian in House of CB | Image source via getty images

The important High Court judgement for the fashion industry on unregistered design rights, Original Beauty v G4K, takes a closer look at when using someone else’s garment when designing your own stops being a source of inspiration and becomes an act of outright copying. The case concerns “Bodycon” and “bandage” garments, the garment style made famous in recent years by celebrities such as the Kardashians, Jennifer Lopez and Beyoncé.

Original Beauty brought an action for infringement of their unregistered design rights under UK and EU law and that the defendants had passed their brand “Oh Polly” off as a sister brand to the claimants “House of CB” founded by British Conna Walker in 2010. In their defence the defendants said the House of CB designs lacked originality, referencing for example earlier garments designed by Cushnie et Ochs, Jacquemus , Margiela and Marc Jacobs to suggest that the claimants’ designs created the same overall impression and were common place. Where accused of copying images of the claimants’ garments in their design process the defendants argued that they had only been used for inspiration rather than directly copied.

Infringement

Looking at the design infringement claim, David Stone, sitting as Deputy High Court Judge, compared 20 House of CB designs against 20 Oh Polly designs.

For each design the judge first established when the claimants had created their design and the design process that led to the design. It is worth noting that none of the defendants’ designs were created before any of the claimants’ designs (save for a few cases in which they had in any event been modified following the launch of the claimants’ design). As to the defendants’ design process in general, the judge highlighted in his judgment that, Ms Henderson, the CEO of Oh Polly who designed many of the defendants’ garments, was not a designer and could in fact “not draw”. Rather the design process involved Ms Henderson designing garments in her head using for inspiration “digital mood boards” (essentially electronic folders of photos of third-party garments found on the internet).

Having considered the chain of events and the design processes the judge then moved on to consider whether the claimants’ UK unregistered design right (UKUDR) and Community unregistered design right (CUDR) were valid. Following which he then considered if the defendants’ design infringed any of these rights.

The judge found that the UKUDRs for all the claimants’ designs were all valid as none of them lacked originality or were commonplace over prior designs pleaded in the defence. The judge also found the CUDRs in all the claimants’ designs to be valid, finding that none of them produced the same overall impression as the prior designs.

When considering whether a design infringed the UKUDR the judge had to establish whether it had been made exactly or substantially to the claimants’ design. For several of the defendants’ designs, screenshots of the claimants’ design had been used as the source, sometimes the only source, of inspiration in the design process. This, combined with the timing of the creation of the two designs, led the judge to find that 7 of the defendants’ designs had been made substantially, if not exactly, to the claimants’ designs and so infringed the claimants’ UKUDR in those designs.

Given that 7 of the defendants’ designs were found to have been made substantially to the claimants’ designs it is not surprising that the judge did not find any of these designs to produce a different overall impression from the claimant’s design, thereby also finding them to infringe the CUDR in those designs (although for one only one colour way was found to infringe the CUDR). Even though some of the defendants’ designs had differences from the claimants’ designs such as lacking a buckle, these were perceived as too subtle to cause an overall different impression. It is perhaps not surprising that the judge found these differences to be too insubstantial to create a different overall impression in designs where he had already established there was infringement of the UKUDR.

Further considerations of infringement

In the second hearing, the judge considered additional colourways of five further garments. At the first form of order hearing, the judge had given orders for dealing with the remaining 71 garments out of the 91 garments pleaded (20 garments had already been decided on in the main judgement). However, following that hearing the defendants raised “some perceived lacunae” in the main judgment, arguing that, even though different colourways had been dealt with for garments D4, D61 and D91, different colourways had not been dealt with in relation to D2, D12, D13 and D35.

See example: from left to right D2, D12, D13 and D35.

At the second hearing ([2021] EWHC 953, the claimants’ submitted that additional findings are not necessary which the judge agreed with on the basis that his findings in relation to UKUDR already prevented sales of all colourways of D2, D12, D13 and D35 in the UK as UKUDR is not reliant on colour, and no pan-European relief was being sought. But as there was still a dispute over the 71 remaining garments, which the claimants and defendants were currently trying to resolve by consent, and the judge maintained a further trial on these 71 would be disproportionate, the judge decided to consider the different colourways for D2, D12, D13 and D35.

For D2, D12 and D35 the judge found that the different colourways, although still infringing the claimants’ UKUDRs, did not infringe the claimants’ CUDRs as the different colourway created a different overall impression.

For D13 the different colourway was mocha. The colourway of C13, which D13 was being compared against, was black. The judge held that the colours were similar and, combined with the other striking aspects of the shapes of the garments, the small difference in shade would not be enough to create a different overall impression. Therefore, D13 was found to infringe both the UKUDR and CUDR of C13.

Passing off

In relation to the passing off claim, the judge found that the defendants’ Oh Polly brand had obtained and copied the claimants’ business model, social media marketing etc. and had gained an advantage from of the success of the House of CB brand. However, the claim that the defendants had passed off their Oh Polly brand as a sister brand of House of CB failed because the claimants failed to prove deception. Although customers had noticed similarities between the brands, none had been deceived. This was shown by comments such as "Oh Polly fully copying House of CB designs" and "Oh Polly wanna be House of CB so bad" on social media.

Overall the judge’s findings are not surprising. He was unimpressed by the defendants’ design evidence and commented that “there was an attitude of “couldn’t care less” about the rights of others”. Accordingly, he held that “the circumstances of the case … [were] sufficient to warrant an award of additional damages in relation to [the 7] designs”.

Costs

The  judge also addressed costs of the trial in a further judgment ([2021] EWHC 953) where he considered CPR 36.17.  He held that although liability had been determined in the Claimants’ favour, the only course open to him was to reserve costs until after the trial of quantum.  The defendants had made a Part 36 offer and it would not be known until then whether that had been beaten. 

It is unclear what the defendants gain from the findings that D2, D12 and D35 do not infringe the claimants CUDRs when they are still found to infringe the UKUDRs and no pan-European relief is being sought. Maybe they were looking to strengthen their hand in their negotiations with the claimants about the remaining 71 garments or in relation to costs of the action. In any event, it feels just that defendants, found to have carried out blatant copying of some designs, should not be granted a declaration of non-infringement on the others.

Written by Hannah Elam, Associate at EIP.

Supreme Court Agrees To Consider Copyright Case Between H&M and Fabric Designer On Validity of Registration Of Fabric Design

Following a lengthy legal battle between Unicolors, a fabric design company and H&M, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide on whether an inaccuracy in copyright registration invalidates a registration without the requirement to show evidence of intent to defraud.

Background

Unicolors originally filed suit against H&M in 2016 for copyright infringement arguing that H&M was selling a geometric print design allegedly bearing one of Unicolors copyrighted designs (first created in 2011). Unicolors was found guilty of copyright infringement by a jury, and in an attempt to overturn the jury’s verdict H&M filed an appeal, saying the district court erred in dismissing H&M's assertion that Unicolors' copyright was invalid, on the basis that the representation made by Unicolours in their original 400 copyright registration application (which contained 31 separate designs, including the fabric design at issue) that all the listed designs were sold to the public at the same time, thus claiming one date of first publication to be inaccurate. This was because during trial Unicolours admitted that some of the designs were actually sold to different customers at different times.

In particular, H&M challenged the validity of the ’400 Registration, claiming that at least nine of the thirty-one designs covered by the ‘400 Registration were sold separately to individual customers as confined works, and the other twenty two as non-confined. H&M argued that this was contrary to Copyright Office regulations requiring that a single-unit registration be published “as a single work,” and based on this inaccuracy, H&M asked the court to refer the registration to the Copyright Office under Section 411(b) to allow the Office to reconsider the validity of the registration.

The district court rejected this request, under the district court’s interpretation of the law, to prove the copyright invalid “due to inaccuracies in a registration requires the copyright claimant to have known its application was inaccurate, a party asserting invalidity must show some indication that the claimant intended to defraud the Copyright Office.” On this matter, the district court found Unicolors’ registration was valid because Unicolors had not intended to defraud the Copyright Office; and that H&M willfully infringed one of Unicolors’ copyright design registrations and awarded Unicolors $817,920.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Judge Carlos Bea, Judge Bridget Bade and District Judge Jon McCalla sitting reversed on the issue. Confirming a collection of works isn't considered "one unit" unless all of the works were first published simultaneously. Due to this inaccuracy the Ninth Circuit held that the district court was in fact required to ask the Register of Copyrights if Unicolors' application would have been refused and intention to defraud the Copyright Office was irrelevant.

With close to $1 million at stake, in its petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, in January 2021, Unicolors has asked the Supreme Court to review the decision. The question put forward by Unicolors that the Supreme High Court will consider is: “Did the Ninth Circuit err in breaking with its own prior precedent and the findings of other circuits and the Copyright Office in holding that 17 U.S.C. § 411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration?”

"[N]o Circuit, including the Ninth, had ever before acknowledged a “bundling” requirement, says Unicolours and that "The PRO-IP Act was enacted to stop courts from invalidating copyright registrations based on immaterial registration errors. But, the panel here did the opposite, ruling that the PRO-IP Act did not require the long-applied fraud or bad faith standard."

The case has major implications because whether a copyright registration is valid is a prerequisite for bringing a lawsuit and claiming statutory damages under US copyright law. If the Supreme court follows the judgement of the Ninth Circuit this could lead to increasing uncertainty for copyright holders seeking to rely on copyright law for the protection of their designs.

We’ll be sure to update you!

Chanel and Resale Site Crepslocker Settle Trademark Dispute

Burberry Succeeds in Obtaining Court Injunction Against Chinese Copycat Brand

Image: Burberry Autumn/Winter 2020

Burberry has been successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction against Xinboli Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd, the owner of the Chinese brand Baneberry, for trademark infringement by a court in the Chinese city of Suzhou; - according to a report in The National Law Review.

Baneberry, a fast-growing Chinese brand has opened 40 physical stores in China in the last year and a half. While the two Baneberry trademarks in dispute had been jointly approved for trademark registration, in 2009 and 2011. The court noted that, Burberry’s trademarks were already well known before the registration date of Baneberry’s.

Evidence from this case shows that the alleged infringing trademark holders used the same special font as the Burberry brand to market their Baneberry products, in parallel with the same or similar patterns. Added to this, the case noted the marketing tactics used by the brand Baneberry, whom declared that the brand “originated in Jermyn Street, England, and its most symbolic ‘British lattice’ is a classic element in the fashion industry ,” could be grounds for unfair competition.

“The Court declared the injunction urgent, because Baneberry and Burberry sell products via similar sales channels ”

The Court declared the injunction urgent, because Baneberry and Burberry sell products via similar sales channels that could lead to customer confusion. Further, the threat posed by sale of Baneberry goods online would weaken “the distinctiveness and recognizability Burberry’s well-known trademarks.”

The case is still currently ongoing!

LVMH & Rihanna Put Fenty Fashion on Pause To Focus on Her Billion Dollar Business

Rihanna caused a stir with news last week that her LVMH owned Fenty brand would be closing its doors, just two years following the launch of Rihanna’s Fenty fashion line. Challenges with production amid the coronavirus pandemic and economic crisis in Europe, posed serious difficulties for the new brands operations and ability to create eight ready-to-wear collections a year as well as travel to visit the French based Maison’s Atelier. LVMH exclusively confirmed this news to WWD in a statement saying: “Rihanna and LVMH have jointly made the decision to put on hold the RTW activity, based in Europe, pending better conditions.”

“Meanwhile, the singers hugely successful lingerie line Savage X Fenty has just been backed with $115 million in new funding with estimates the brand is worth $1 billion in value. ”

Meanwhile, the singers hugely successful lingerie line Savage X Fenty has just been backed with $115 million in new funding with estimates the brand is worth $1 billion in value. The news of her fashion production line being put on hold, coincided with the completion of the latest funding round for the singers lingerie line Savage X Fenty launched in 2018. In a joint statement given to Women’s Wear Daily (WWD), LVMH and Rihanna said: “Following the completion of the fundraising round where L Catterton took a stake in Savage X Fenty, LVMH and Rihanna reaffirm…their ambition to concentrate on the growth and the long-term development of the Fenty ecosystem focusing on cosmetics, skincare, and lingerie.” An area where the brand has seen more than 200% leap in revenue growth. Last year, Savage X Fenty saw revenue growth of more than 200% and “increased its active VIP member base by more than 150%. 

“In two short years, Savage X Fenty has achieved remarkable success by disrupting the intimates category,” said Jon Owsley, co-managing partner of L Catterton’s Growth Fund. It has been reported that "Savage x Fenty is in a position to be the global lingerie market leader by 2025, the same year that women’s activewear is expected to reach a $216.9 billion value."  

“As we continue to grow the brand at a remarkable pace, it is imperative that we move forward with partners who not only have a deep understanding of our business and customer base, but share our ambitious vision for Savage X Fenty and have the operational know-how to work with us to achieve it,” said Natalie Guzman and Christiane Pendarvis, co-presidents of Savage X Fenty.

Rihanna’s brand has proven that diversity and inclusion in sizing, access, and marketing can lead to an even greater market share for brands. The 2017 launch of Fenty Beauty included an unprecedented 40 shades of foundation, while her lingerie brand has an extended size offering and has recently expanded to include men’s basics.  Her prioritisation of inclusivity had made her one of the most inclusive brands on the market which is a key attribute of her the singers growing success.

Love Island Star Molly Mae Has Instagram Post Banned After Breaching ASA rules

Love Island Star Molly Mae Has Instagram Post Banned for Breaching ASA rules

Image ASA/Molly Mae Instagram

A ruling from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today has banned an instagram ad posted by former Love Islander and social media influencer Molly Mae after it received a complaint that challenged whether the post ‘was obviously identifiable as a marketing communication.’

The Instagram post in question appeared on @mollymaehague instagram page, seen on 26 September 2019, and featured an image of Molly Mae wearing a coat, with the caption below the image “A/W, I’m ready” with @prettylittlething tagged - the official Instagram account for Pretty Little Thing.

Responding to the complaint, the UK fashion retailer Pretty Little Thing confirmed that Ms Hague was a brand ambassador for Pretty Little Thing (PLT) and maintained that the post was an 'organic post' and did not fall within the remit of their contractual agreement. They provided some examples of similar ‘organic’ feed posts created by Ms Hague which they said were posted prior to the contractual agreement between PLT and Ms Hague that "demonstrated that she had a genuine interest in the PLT brand.”

In 2019, shortly after her appearance on the dating show Love Island Ms Hague landed a £500,000 deal to become a brand ambassador for UK based clothing retailer PrettyLittleThing. In acknowledgement of the complaint, The PLT brand argued that they did not have any prior knowledge that the post would be posted or that they had any control over it. Via her agent, Ms Hague reiterated that the post was not an ad but an organic feed post and she had tagged @prettylittlething in the post as she was wearing one of their products.

Ruling

However the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) noted that Ms Hague had a financial relationship with PLT as their brand ambassador and because the post featured her wearing a PLT product which was also tagged to PLT’s Instagram account - they considered that PLT had a level of control of the post that was sufficient for it to fall within the remit of the CAP Code.

The advertising watchdog also noted that at the time the ad was seen, the ‘bio’ field on Ms Hague’s Instagram profile stated “Ambassador @prettylittlething” - because of that, they acknowledged that since this text had been included on her Instagram profile that those (3.6 million) who had chosen to follow Ms Hague’s Instagram account might be aware that there was a commercial relationship between Ms Hague and PLT. Still they went onto consider that because the text in an Instagram bio, was only likely to be seen a limited number of times by followers and not when people were viewing individual posts that this limited the effectiveness in disclosing that posts were advertising.

For those reasons the advertising watchdog concluded that in the absence of a clear identifier, such as “#ad”, the post was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication and was therefore in breach of the CAP Code covering recognition of marketing communications. The ASA has warned the clothing retailer and Ms Hague that the ad must not appear in the form complained of and to ensure that their ads are obviously identifiable as marketing communications by including clear identifiers such as #ad.

The ASA has been keen to crack down on misleading influencer posts. According to the CAP code; marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such, and must not falsely claim or imply that the marketer is acting as a consumer. If not obvious from the context - marketing communications must make clear their commercial intent for example, by using terms like "advertisement feature" (See CAP Code Edition 12 rule 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4)

Last year the ad watchdog teamed up with ITV to create a "cheat sheet" to help Love Island contestants safely navigate the advertising rules surrounding social media, which apply to all influencers and celebrities.

Comment

With Love Islanders frequently landing big sponsorship deals with brands after they leave the villa - it's unlikely that this will be the last ruling of it's kind.

Deals

In 2019 Amber Gill became brand ambassador for MissPap in a deal worth millions of pounds with the launch of her first clothing line. Maura Higgins and India Reynolds both became brand ambassadors for online fashion giant Boohoo while Ovie Soko joined ASOS as a model and Curtis Prichard signed a deal with high street fashion retailer Debenhams - the first of its kind. With a new show on the horizon, the recent ASA ruling comes as timely warning for Love Island hopefuls to get up to speed with ASA regulations.

FLB Host 8th Fashion Law Masterclass with Chanel, Manolo & Burberry Legal Counsels In London

On June 21st Fashion, Law and Business hosted the 8th annual Summer Fashion Law Masterclass at the distinguished Condé Nast College of Fashion & Design, in Central London. Designed to give attendees an understanding of the most important legal aspects of the fashion industry, participants had the opportunity to hear from experts on Fashion Law matters; from talks on protection of intellectual property, sustainability, e-commerce, and consumer protection to other related issues.

The impressive masterclass speaker line up included Lucy Aboulian, Head of Intellectual Property (Regional), CHANEL. Philippa Bailey, Intellectual Property Legal Counsel, CHANEL. Jeff Warren, Director of Brand Protection, EMEIA Burberry, Jack Randles, IP & Commercial Legal Counsel, Manolo Blahnik and Cassio Mosse, IP Partner, Mosse IP Brazil who supported the Fashion Law masterclass initiative and shared their insights and expertise with the attendees in a series of masterclass talks that gave participants a deep dive into some of the latest trends in the field of Fashion Law and what it takes to legally manage a globally successful fashion brand.

Chanel Legal Counsel spoke on the topic of protection, clearance and registration for luxury fashion brands and how to secure the protection you need. Burberry Legal Counsel shared with participants brand protection and enforcement strategies for IP rights in fashion and Manolo Blahnik Legal Counsel talked on contemporary legal issues in fashion; including online Influencer marketing, social media and consumer protection issues and Cassio Mosse of Mosse IP law firm Brazil - discussed e-commerce and distribution matters and fashion brands.

Lucy Aboulian, Head of Intellectual Property (Regional) and Philippa Bailey, Intellectual Property Legal Counsel of CHANEL speaking to attendees at FLB’s summer Fashion Law Masterclass, 2019

The masterclass included a diverse crowd of 40 selected participants (UK home based and overseas) with attendees that flew in from Dubai, USA, France, Spain, Holland, Poland and beyond and the day concluded with a Champagne drinks and networking session with the event host and guest speakers.

---

MASTERCLASS FAQ’S

Why attend?

Bridging the gap between fashion, law and business since 2013, as a part of the masterclass programme, you will have access to a reputable array of industry speakers. Past industry speakers include at LVMH European Legal Counsel, Conde Nast Legal Counsel, Chanel Legal Counsel among others. Not only will participants receive a masterclass from the experts who will share their experiences of growing some of the most internationally renowned fashion brands, but they will also gain the unique opportunity to discuss practical matters on fashion law in an environment celebrated for being dedicated to fashion. 

Where does everything take place?

This one-day masterclass happens three times a year and takes place at the host organisation of The Condé Nast College of Fashion & Design, based in Central London.

Next masterclass date?

Our highly acclaimed Fashion Law Masterclass will be held in 29th November 2019.

Masterclass Benefits:

These masterclasses are aimed at providing fashion entrepreneurs, brands and professionals with key practical advice on building and sustaining a fashion business. The day will provide answers to the key issues designers need to know on how to protect and secure their brand.

Are refreshments included?

The event includes continental breakfast, morning tea/coffee, and lunch. It concludes in an exclusive networking session over champagne.

What is the dress code?

Masterclass dress code: Smart/Casual

For more details and how to register for this event: Go to www.fashionlawbusiness.com/masterclass