Off-White™ has accused an ice-cream chain of copyright infringement

A California ice cream chain, Afters Ice Cream, has been sued by Off-White™ for copyright infringement after marketing a merch collection with the same distinctive signs as the brand's garments but with the words "Off-Diet." According to the brand, merch, store décor, and the use of brands and fonts could lead consumers to believe that the ice cream business is somehow affiliated with Off-White™. Legal issues aside, it remains ironic that Off-White™ should signal to consumers that it has not partnered with an ice cream chain – which, given the bizarre collaboration history of the brand and its founder, could be very plausible. 

From a legal point of view, Off-White™ is right: you can't copy one of the most famous brands in the world, try to make money and hope to get away with it. According to the brand's complaint, "unquestionable bad faith intent to trade off of Off-White’s goodwill is demonstrated by, among other things, [its] ubiquitous use of the infringing marks in connection with [its] business". But a ruling previously handed down in the US involving Louis Vuitton could provide Afters Ice Cream with the key to victory: infringing copyright is a crime, but the parody is not. 

In order for this argument to stand, however, the defence must show that it has used only an indispensable number of registered marks and that the use of the contested product is different from that of the original product. In general, the very nature of the parody would indicate to the consumer that the brand involved is not associated with those who are making it the object of humour. A strategy that could become even more decisive considering how Afters Ice Cream has already parodied famous brands such as Anti Social Social Club, which has become "Anti Diet Diet Club"; a Fear of God with the slogan "Fear of Diets" and Kanye West's merch with products decorated with slogans that said "Sundae Service" and "Ice Cream is King". 

It remains to be seen how this issue will be resolved – a similar case involving Jack Daniels and a toy manufacturer years ago came to the fore, another was won by a dog accessories brand against Louis Vuitton who, however, in the field of actual clothing, won in court against a brand that had represented its bags on tote bags for non-parodic purposes.