Carats & Contracts: Intellectual Property Protection for Jewelry Designs

July 23, 2024

From the Editors: Center for Art Law often receives inquiries that inspire our articles. Please reach out if you have questions. Who knows, your question might blossom as one our upcoming articles.

by Atreya Mathur

Imagine a jewelry designer who has just unveiled a new collection inspired by floral motifs, detailed with engraved designs of roses and daisies and meticulously crafted with specific materials to ensure it doesn’t rust or scratch easily. The designer is thrilled when the pieces receive acclaim from fashion magazines and customers. However, a few months later, the designer discovers that a large jewelry retailer is selling pieces strikingly similar to her designs, but at a fraction of the price. This situation poses several pressing questions: How can the designer protect their original work? What legal recourse do they have? Can they compel the retailer to stop selling the copied pieces, or even require them to destroy the infringing items? And what happens if the designer never receives recognition from such fashion magazines? If the work or design isn’t well known to the public, how would that affect the recourse that might be available for infringement?

An Overview: What Can Be Protected?

In the world of jewelry design, protecting intellectual property can be a complex task that varies significantly across different jurisdictions. Each country has its own set of laws and regulations determining what aspects of a design can be protected and the methods by which designers can safeguard their creations. For instance, the European Union has its own framework for design rights, while countries like India have distinct approaches to copyright and trademark protections for jewelry design.

However, this article will focus on intellectual property protection within the United States and provide an outline of what can and cannot be protected. The article will also explore the challenges designers face in enforcing their rights and briefly discuss strategies and contractual measures that designers can adopt to enhance their protection and mitigate risks, with particular regard to smaller or emerging artists.

Copyright

Scope: In the United States, copyright protection is automatically granted to original creative works that are fixed in a tangible medium.^[1] This includes sketches, drawings, the jewelry item itself, and other tangible representations of a jewelry design. Therefore, once an original jewelry design is created and reproduced in a tangible form, it may be covered under copyright law.^[2] This protection encompasses unique design elements, intricate patterns, and aesthetic features that give a piece its artistic value.^[3] Copyright protection arises automatically upon the creation of an original work, though registering the copyright with the appropriate authority provides additional legal benefits, such as the ability to sue for statutory damages and attorney’s fees.^[4]

Limitations: It is important to understand that copyright law protects only the aesthetic features of a jewelry design and does not extend to functional aspects of jewelry.^[5] For instance, copyright law may safeguard the arrangement of gemstones, the pattern, and the overall visual appeal of the design. However, it will not cover the utilitarian elements, such as commonly shaped clasps, fasteners, or structural components. Additionally, copyright protection does not cover ideas, concepts, or unrecorded designs.^[6]

Duration: In the United States, copyright protection lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years.^[7] For works made for hire or anonymous/pseudonymous works, the duration is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.^[8]

As an example, a detailed floral pattern engraved on a bracelet can be copyrighted, protecting it from being copied or used without permission. However, the practical mechanism that allows the bracelet to open and close cannot be copyrighted.

Design Patents

Scope: Design patents are obtainable by anyone who invents a “new, original and ornamental design for any article of manufacture.”^[9] This contrasts with utility patents, which protect machines, processes, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter, and other functional inventions. Design patents safeguard the visual appearance of an article, including its surface ornamentation, impressions, prints, pictures, shapes, and configurations.^[10] In rare cases, jewelry may qualify for utility patent protection if it incorporates functional elements, such as a bracelet that also serves as a bottle opener.^[11] However, for traditional jewelry that is purely ornamental, design patents are the ideal form of intellectual property protection.^[12] To qualify for a design patent, the design must be novel, non-obvious, and original.^[13] The application process involves submitting detailed drawings and descriptions to the patent office, demonstrating the unique aspects of the design.

Limitations: Obtaining a design patent can be expensive and time-consuming. Additionally, the protection is limited to the specific design depicted in the patent application. Any substantial alterations to the design may require a new patent application.

Duration: Design patents in the United States last for 15 years from the date of grant.^[14] During this period, the patent holder has exclusive rights to make, use, sell, or import the design.

For example, a uniquely shaped pendant, such as one featuring an abstract geometric design, can be protected by a design patent. This ensures that no other entity can produce, sell, or import jewelry with the same design without authorization.

Trademarks

Scope: Trademarks protect symbols, names, logos, and slogans used to identify and distinguish goods. In the context of jewelry, a designer’s name, logo, or a specific mark used consistently on their pieces can be trademarked.^[15] Trademarks help build brand identity and prevent others from using similar marks that could confuse consumers.

Limitations: Trademarks do not protect the design or functional aspects of the jewelry itself. They only cover the branding elements.^[16] Additionally, trademark protection requires continuous use in commerce and regular renewal to maintain the rights.^[17]

Duration: Trademark protection can last indefinitely, provided the mark is used in commerce and the registration is properly maintained with regular renewals.^[18]

For example, the distinctive “CC” logo used by Chanel is trademarked. This protection prevents other jewelry makers from using a similar logo that could mislead consumers into thinking their products are associated with Chanel.

Trade Dress

Scope: Trade dress refers to the visual appearance of a product or its packaging that signifies the source of the product to consumers.^[19] In the jewelry industry, trade dress can protect the overall look and feel of a piece or a collection, provided it has acquired distinctiveness and is non-functional.^[20]

Limitations: To claim trade dress protection, a designer must prove that the design has acquired secondary meaning, meaning consumers associate the look of the jewelry with a particular source.^[21] Additionally, trade dress cannot protect functional aspects of the design.^[22]

Duration: Trade dress protection lasts as long as the design is distinctive and used in commerce.^[23] Unlike copyright and patents, it does not have a fixed duration.

For example, a jewelry brand uses a distinct diamond-encrusted band design for its engagement rings. If this design becomes widely recognized by consumers as uniquely belonging to that brand, the brand could potentially claim trade dress protection for this specific style of band. This would prevent other jewelry makers from using a similar design that may confuse customers into thinking they are buying from the original brand.

In Davis v. The Gap, Inc., designer On Davis (“Davis”) created unique eye jewelry, which they described as “sculptured metallic ornamental wearable art.”^[24] Each piece was made from gold, silver, or brass and constructed similarly to eyeglasses but with a different effect: “The frames support decorative, perforated metallic discs or plates in place of lenses, effectively concealing the wearer’s eyes while allowing the wearer to see through the perforations.”^[25] Despite Davis having registered copyright for the design, the Gap used the eye jewelry on a model in an advertisement for their stores displayed across the U.S.

The case focused on whether Davis was entitled to damages and, if so, the amount. One reason the court rejected Gap’s “fair use” defense was the prominence of the infringing item in the advertisement: “partly because Davis’s design and concept were strikingly bizarre; it is startling to see the wearer peering at us over his Onoculii. Because eyes are naturally a focal point of attention, and because the wearer is at the center of the group—the apex of the V formation—the viewer’s gaze is powerfully drawn to Davis’s creation. The impression created is that the models posing in the ad have been outfitted from top to bottom, including eyewear, with Gap merchandise.”^[26] The court ruled that Davis’s copyright had been infringed, but he was not awarded the full amount of damages sought.

Each type of intellectual property protection covers different aspects of a jewelry design, from its artistic elements to its overall brand identity, providing a comprehensive defense against unauthorized use and imitation. By understanding the scope, limitations, and duration of each protection type, designers can strategically combine these measures to build strong protection for their intellectual property. For instance, a designer might copyright the artistic elements of a piece, obtain a design patent for its unique visual features, trademark their brand logo, and claim trade dress protection for the distinctive look and feel of their entire collection. This multi-faceted approach ensures that all aspects of a jewelry design are covered, enhancing overall protection and mitigating risks against infringement.

And What Cannot Be Protected?

Understanding the limitations of IP protections is as crucial as knowing what can be protected. This knowledge helps artists and designers navigate the legal landscape and set realistic expectations of their designs receiving protection.

Functional Aspects

IP laws, particularly copyright and design patents generally do not cover the functional aspects of jewelry.^[27] This includes any element that is essential to the item’s utility or operational functionality. For instance, mechanisms like clasps, hinges, or the specific way a piece is constructed to hold gemstones securely are considered functional and, therefore, are not protected by copyright or design patents. Without protection for functional elements, others can legally replicate these aspects of a jewelry design. Designers must rely on trade secrets or patents specifically related to utility (utility patents) if the functionality involves a novel, non-obvious invention. For example, a unique clasp mechanism designed to make a necklace easier to fasten cannot be protected under copyright or design patents because it serves a functional purpose. However, a utility patent might be applicable if the mechanism itself is innovative.^[28]

Ideas and Concepts

Ideas, concepts, and themes cannot be protected by IP laws. Only the tangible expression of an idea is eligible for protection under copyright.^[29]

This means that broad design concepts, such as “a collection inspired by nature” or “a series featuring geometric shapes,” are not protectable unless they are manifested in a specific, original form.^[30] Designers therefore need to be cautious when sharing ideas and concepts, especially in collaborative environments. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) can help protect these ideas before they are fully realized and formally protected. As an example, the general idea of creating a line of jewelry based on celestial motifs cannot be protected. However, a specific star-shaped pendant design that embodies this concept can be copyrighted or patented if it meets the necessary criteria.

Commonly Used or Generic Designs

Designs that are considered generic or are commonly used in the jewelry industry cannot be protected.^[31] This includes standard shapes, traditional patterns, and common design elements that lack originality. The rationale is that these elements are in the public domain and must remain available for all designers to use.^[32] Designers cannot claim exclusive rights to basic or widely recognized design elements. They must infuse their work with a high degree of originality and creativity to qualify for protection under copyright law. A simple heart-shaped pendant, unless it incorporates a highly original and distinctive twist, cannot be protected because heart shapes are a common design in jewelry. However, a detailed engraved heart pendant design with unique features might likely qualify for protection.

Designs Not Fixed in a Tangible Medium

Copyright law requires that a design be fixed in a tangible medium of expression to be protected.^[33] This means that ideas, sketches, or designs that exist only in the designer’s mind or have not been recorded in some form cannot be copyrighted. Designers should thereby ensure that their creations are documented through sketches, prototypes, or digital representations to qualify for copyright protection. This fixation is a prerequisite for legal recognition of the work through copyright.^[34] A jewelry design concept discussed verbally or existing only as a rough idea in the designer’s mind is not protected. Once the design is sketched or rendered in a digital format, it can then be considered for copyright protection.

Lack of Distinctiveness

For trade dress protection, the design must have acquired distinctiveness, meaning it must be recognized by consumers as indicating the source of the product.^[35] If a design is too generic or lacks distinctiveness, it will not qualify for trade dress protection.^[36] Designers aiming for trade dress protection need to cultivate a recognizable and distinctive style that consumers can associate with their brand.^[37] This often requires consistent use and significant marketing efforts. A jewelry design that is not distinct or unique to a particular brand, such as a simple band ring without any distinguishing features, cannot be protected as trade dress.^[38] However, a series of rings featuring a unique, recognizable pattern associated with a specific brand might qualify.^[39]

In Todd v. Mont. Silversmiths, Inc., a designer’s barbed-wire jewelry was not protected under copyright laws because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any copyrightable features added to distinguish her work from ordinary public domain barbed wire.^[40] The court stated that “copyright could not be granted in an arrangement that was not visually distinguishable nor truly ‘original’ in the ordinary meaning of the word.”^[41]

Similarly, in Vacheron and Constantin-LeCoultre Watches, Inc. v. Benrus Watch Co., Inc., the court upheld the copyright office’s rejection of Vacheron’s copyright registration.^[42] Despite the watch face design being original, unusual, and jeweled, it was not considered a work of art separable from the utility of the watch.^[43]

Enforcing Protection for Designs

Enforcing IP protection for jewelry designs is a complex and often challenging process in itself. Despite having legal frameworks in place, several factors contribute to the difficulties designers face when trying to safeguard their creations. The challenges of enforcing IP rights include legal costs and ambiguous elements.

High Legal Costs:

One of the primary challenges is the high cost associated with enforcing IP rights. Legal battles, particularly in IP cases, can be lengthy and expensive. Smaller designers or emerging artists often lack the financial resources to pursue legal action against infringers, especially if the infringer is a large corporation with extensive legal resources.

Complexity of Proving Infringement:

Proving infringement in jewelry design can be particularly challenging due to several nuanced factors. Unlike patents, where infringement can often be determined by a clear-cut comparison of technical specifications, copyright and design rights involve more subjective assessments of aesthetic and creative elements:

Detailed Comparison of Designs

Substantial Similarity: One of the main criteria for proving copyright infringement is substantial similarity. This requires a detailed comparison between the original design and the alleged copy.^[44] The court must determine if the two designs are so similar that an ordinary observer would recognize one as a copy of the other.^[45] This process involves analyzing various elements such as shape, pattern, color, material, and overall appearance. Small modifications by the infringer can complicate this analysis, making it difficult to establish a clear case of copying.

Expert Testimony: Given the subjective nature of design, expert testimony often plays a crucial role.^[46] Experts in jewelry design can provide insights into whether the similarities between the two designs are significant enough to constitute infringement. They can break down the design elements and explain the creative process, helping the court understand the nuances that might not be apparent to a layperson. However, expert opinions can vary, and the opposing side may present their own experts to counter these arguments.

Access and Independent Creation

Proving Access: To establish that infringement has occurred, it must be shown that the infringer had access to the original design.^[47] This means demonstrating that the infringer saw or could have seen the original work before creating their own. This can be straightforward in cases where the original design was publicly displayed or widely marketed, but it becomes more difficult if the design was less visible. Without clear evidence of access, it is challenging to argue that the design was copied rather than independently created.^[48]

Independent Creation Defense: The infringer may claim that their design was independently created without any reference to the original.^[49] This defense can be particularly strong if the designs have common elements that are typical in the industry.^[50] For example, certain motifs, shapes, or styles may be prevalent in jewelry design, making it plausible that two designers arrived at similar results independently. Disproving this defense requires showing that the similarities are too specific and detailed to be coincidental.

Market Confusion and Brand Dilution

Consumer Confusion: Another aspect of proving infringement involves showing that the copied design causes consumer confusion. If customers are likely to mistake the infringing design for the original, it can damage the original designer’s brand and market value.^[51] Evidence of consumer confusion can be gathered through surveys, testimonials, and market research. However, proving this confusion requires thorough and often costly investigation.

Dilution of Brand Value: Even if there is no direct consumer confusion, the existence of knock-off designs can dilute the brand value of the original.^[52] This is particularly relevant for high-end jewelry brands whose value lies in their exclusivity and reputation. Demonstrating dilution involves showing that the copied designs diminish the distinctiveness and prestige of the original brand.^[53] This can be an abstract and difficult concept to quantify in court.

Legal Precedents and Jurisdictional Differences

Different jurisdictions have varying standards and interpretations of what constitutes infringement. Legal precedents in one region may not apply in another, leading to inconsistent outcomes. Understanding and navigating these differences requires specialized legal knowledge and often involves coordinating legal strategies across multiple jurisdictions.

Detailed Documentation

Designers must keep detailed records of their creative process, including sketches, prototypes, and revisions. This documentation serves as evidence of originality and can be crucial in proving that the design was created independently before any alleged infringement occurred. However, not all designers maintain such records, which can make it difficult to prove.

Case Studies in Focus

Cases involving fast fashion brands like Costco, H&M and Zara in the jewelery or fashion world demonstrate the complexity of proving infringement. These brands are often accused of quickly replicating high-end designs and selling them at a lower price. (See a list of jewelery infringement cases here.) For example, if a luxury jewelry designer’s unique bracelet design appears in a fast fashion store, the designer must prove that the fast fashion brand had access to the original design and that the similarities are not coincidental. Given the rapid production cycles and global reach of fast fashion brands, this can be a challenging task.

The case of Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.^[54] highlights significant issues and challenges in the realm of trademark infringement concerning jewelry designs. In 2013, Tiffany sued Costco, alleging that Costco’s use of the term “Tiffany” on point-of-sale signs for unbranded diamond engagement rings constituted trademark infringement and counterfeiting.^[55] Tiffany claimed that the signage could mislead consumers into thinking the rings were associated with Tiffany’s well-known brand.^[56] The district court initially granted summary judgment for Tiffany and awarded Tiffany Costco’s trebled profits along with punitive damages and prejudgment interest, for a total of $21,010,438.35.^[57]

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, identifying several key issues that complicated the infringement claims. In its analysis, the Circuit court determined that Costco had successfully raised a triable issue of fact on several key points, which prevented a summary judgment in favor of Tiffany & Co.^[58] Firstly, regarding actual confusion, Costco presented evidence suggesting that there might be genuine consumer uncertainty about whether the “Tiffany” labeled rings were indeed associated with the renowned jewelry company.^[59] This evidence could include customer inquiries or testimonials indicating that some consumers were unsure about the rings’ origins, which is crucial in trademark infringement cases where actual confusion is a significant factor.

Secondly, Costco contended that it acted in good faith by using the term “Tiffany” to describe a specific ring setting style, rather than intending to mislead consumers into thinking the rings were made by Tiffany & Co. They argued that “Tiffany” had become a generic term within the jewelry industry to refer to a particular type of solitaire diamond setting, independent of the brand name.^[60] This point addresses the issue of Costco’s intent and whether their actions constituted willful infringement or were a legitimate use of a common descriptive term. The Second Circuit supported this argument by noting that it is feasible for a single word to function as both a source identifier and a descriptive term within the same product category.^[61]

Thirdly, Costco emphasized the sophistication of consumers in the market for diamond engagement rings. They argued that individuals purchasing such high-value items are generally well-informed and conduct thorough research before making a purchase. Therefore, these educated consumers would recognize the term “Tiffany” as a reference to a ring setting style and not necessarily an indication of the brand Tiffany & Co. This argument aimed to undermine Tiffany & Co.’s claim that the use of “Tiffany” would likely cause consumer confusion.^[62] The court ultimately found that Costco had acted in good faith and that Costco customers would not have been confused by the “Tiffany” rings sold at Costco. According to court papers, only 3,349 consumers bought Tiffany rings at Costco during the time of dispute.^[63] After replacing the law firm that represented them, Tiffany & Co. settled with Costco for an undisclosed amount, likely influenced by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision and their reluctance to jeopardize such a valuable trademark.^[64]

As another example, in December 2017, Galatea Jewelry filed a copyright infringement suit against Swarovski North America in the District Court for the Central District of California.^[65] Galatea alleged that Swarovski had infringed on its copyrighted “TWO OF ONE HEART” jewelry designs, which featured two overlapping hearts made from a single loop of metal.^[66]

Galatea claimed that Swarovski began manufacturing and selling jewelry similar to its designs around January 2016, promoting these products as part of its Valentine’s Day collection with advertisements featuring supermodel Miranda Kerr. Galatea argued that Swarovski’s designs closely mirrored its own, asserting access through various channels including Galatea’s website, trade shows, and industry publications.^[67] The case involved allegations of willful or reckless copyright infringement, seeking injunctive relief to halt Swarovski’s alleged infringement and damages, including profits or statutory damages. Ultimately, the case was settled between the parties, resulting in a dismissal without prejudice. Details of the settlement, including any terms agreed upon between Galatea and Swarovski, were not disclosed publicly.

As a brief analysis of the case and above mentioned arguments, one of the primary requirements to prove copyright infringement is demonstrating substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the allegedly infringing work. In this case, Galatea alleged that Swarovski’s designs closely resembled its “TWO OF ONE HEART” jewelry. The comparison involved intricate details of the design elements, such as the arrangement of overlapping hearts made from a single loop of metal. Proving substantial similarity often requires detailed analysis and expert testimony to compare the designs side-by-side. Galatea also asserted that Swarovski had access to its copyrighted designs through various channels, including Galatea’s website, trade shows, and industry publications.^[68] Proving access is crucial because it establishes the opportunity for the alleged infringer to have seen and copied the copyrighted work. In this case, Galatea’s claims of access were supported by its assertion that Swarovski participated in trade shows where Galatea showcased its designs.^[69]

Defendants in copyright infringement cases also often raise defenses such as independent creation or lack of substantial similarity. They may argue that the elements of the design are scenes a faire—elements that are standard or necessary in the treatment of a particular idea (in this case, heart-shaped jewelry designs). Establishing scènes à faire can weaken the strength of a plaintiff’s copyright claim, as courts may afford only “thin” copyright protection to such elements. Galatea also sought enhanced damages for willful or reckless infringement, which requires a higher burden of proof. Proving willfulness involves showing that the defendant knew or should have known about the infringement. This can be challenging without clear evidence of intent.

However, it’s interesting and important to note that many such infringement cases involving designs are settled out of court. Settlements often involve non-disclosure agreements, making it challenging to assess the actual terms and outcomes of the settlement.

Strategies for Designers: Emerging Artists vs Big Brands

As evidenced by numerous legal battles and the inherent challenges of enforcing IP rights, such as those discussed above, designers face significant hurdles in proving and defending their creations against infringement. For small or emerging artists whose work isn’t widely recognized, navigating these issues can be particularly challenging when facing infringement by larger entities. The likelihood of success in such cases hinges on several critical factors. First and foremost as discussed above is the ability to provide compelling evidence and documentation that supports the originality and timeline of their designs as well as showing substantial similarity. This task becomes even tougher when the alleged infringer is a large corporation with extensive product lines and design portfolios. Legal and financial resources pose significant challenges for small artists, as litigation costs can quickly escalate beyond their means. Engaging in legal action requires financial resources for legal fees, expert witnesses, and court costs, which may limit their ability to pursue litigation, especially against well-funded defendants.

Beyond traditional IP protections like copyrights and trademarks, which often require such rigorous evidentiary standards and face potential defenses like scène à faires, designers can employ additional strategies to safeguard their work. These include the strategic use of contracts.

Examples of big name brands “stealing” designs from smaller artists

Contracts play a pivotal role by establishing clear terms for ownership, usage rights, and financial arrangements. In the event of a breach, they provide designers with a mechanism to seek remedies, including damages for financial losses incurred due to unauthorized use or misappropriation of their designs. This proactive approach not only deters potential infringers but also reinforces the legal framework necessary to uphold the value of creative efforts in the marketplace.

1. Register Copyrights: One of the most crucial steps for designers is to register their jewelry designs with the U.S. Copyright Office. Registration provides several benefits, including the ability to sue for infringement and seek statutory damages and attorney’s fees. It also establishes a public record of ownership. Designers should regularly review their new designs and consider registering copyrights promptly to secure their rights.
2. Document Design Process and Creation: Keeping detailed records of the design process, sketches, prototypes, and any modifications can be crucial evidence in proving originality and ownership in case of a copyright dispute. Maintain a comprehensive design journal or digital archive that tracks each stage of design development, from initial concept to final product.
3. Monitor and Enforce Rights: Regularly monitor the market for any unauthorized use or copying of designs. Implement a monitoring system that includes periodic searches online, attending trade shows, and maintaining communication with industry contacts to detect potential infringements.
4. Use Contracts Effectively: Contracts are essential tools for defining rights, responsibilities, and limitations. As a general note, if it a single or exclusive design piece to be manufactured and the manufacturer or other party is hesitant to sign a contract for the same, approaching the subject of an exclusivity agreement for the manufacturer to produce a series of works (if the artist approves and likes the quality of the design manufactured) may be a helpful offer to ensure that the work is protected and a contract is signed.
   • Manufacturing Agreements: Clearly define the scope of work, exclusivity, quality standards, and ownership of designs.
   • Licensing Agreements: Specify terms for the use of the designs by third parties, including royalties, territory, duration, and quality control.
   • Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): Protect confidential information shared during collaborations or discussions with manufacturers, suppliers, or partners.
   • Distribution Agreements: Outline terms for how the designs will be sold, marketed, and distributed, including territories and exclusivity.

Further, public perception and support can sometimes tip the scales in favor of the artist. In cases where social media and public advocacy shine a spotlight on perceived injustices, larger companies have been pressured into removing the work, compensating smaller artists or improving their practices. The power of social media to amplify the voices of artists and their supporters has led to instances where public outcry has influenced companies to settle disputes or change their policies to avoid reputational damage.

Conclusion

Navigating the landscape of intellectual property protection for jewelry designers involves a combination of understanding legal frameworks, strategically employing various forms of IP protection, and leveraging both contractual and social mechanisms. Copyrights, design patents, trademarks, and trade dress offer different layers of protection, each with its own scope, limitations, and duration. Regular documentation of the design process and early registration of copyrights can solidify claims. Strategic use of contracts, from manufacturing agreements to licensing deals, reinforces control over designs. Artists may explore alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation or licensing negotiations before resorting to litigation. These avenues can sometimes lead to more favorable outcomes without the protracted costs and uncertainties associated with legal proceedings.

Furthermore, engaging with the public and harnessing social media can amplify voices and influence industry practices. By combining these approaches, designers can better safeguard their innovations and navigate the challenges of the jewelry market with greater confidence and resilience.

About the Author

Atreya Mathur is the Director of Legal Research at the Center for Art Law.

Select Sources:

1. See U.S Copyright Office, Circular 1, Copyright Basics, available at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf ↑
2. How to Protect My Jewelry Designs, Grant Attorneys at Law PLLC, available at https://grant.legal/how-to-protect-my-jewelry-designs/#:~:text=In%20the%20US%2C%20copyright%20protection,representations%20of%20a%20jewelry%20design. ↑
3. Id. ↑
4. Id. ↑
5. U.S Copyright Office, Circular 1, Copyright Basics, available at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf ↑
6. Id. ↑
7. Id. ↑
8. Id. ↑
9. 35 U.S.C. § 171 ↑
10. Jewelry Design Patents, Adams IP, LLC, available at https://www.adamsiplaw.com/industries/jewelry-design-patents/#:~:text=Design%20patents%20protect%20the%20way,a%20bottle%20opener%2C%20for%20example. ↑
11. Id. ↑
12. Id. ↑
13. 35 U.S.C. § 171 ↑
14. 35 U.S.C. 173 ↑
15. Can Jewelry Designs be Copyrighted?, Jewelry This (March 18, 2019), available at https://www.jewelrythis.com/blog/can-jewelry-designs-be-copyrighted/ ↑
16. Michael Kondoudis, How Long Do Trademarks Last? – AN EASY GUIDE, Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, available at https://www.mekiplaw.com/how-long-do-trademarks-last-an-easy-guide/#:~:text=Trademarks%20do%20not%20have%20expiration,of%2010%2Dyear%20renewal%20terms. ↑
17. Id. ↑
18. Id. ↑
19. Michael Kondoudis,An EASY Guide to Trade Dress, Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, available at https://www.mekiplaw.com/guide-to-trade-dress/ ↑
20. Id. ↑
21. Id. ↑
22. Id. ↑
23. Id. ↑
24. Davis v. The Gap, Inc. (2001) [246 F.3d 152] ↑
25. Id. ↑
26. Id. ↑
27. Jewelry Design Patents, Adams IP, LLC, available at https://www.adamsiplaw.com/industries/jewelry-design-patents/#:~:text=Design%20patents%20protect%20the%20way,a%20bottle%20opener%2C%20for%20example. ↑
28. Id. ↑
29. U.S Copyright Office, Circular 1, Copyright Basics, available at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf ↑
30. Id. ↑
31. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b): This section clarifies that copyright protection does not extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,” which includes standard shapes and common design elements; See 35 U.S.C. § 101: This section outlines the general requirements for patentability, stating that patents are granted for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” By implication, designs that are not new or lack originality (i.e., common designs) do not qualify. ↑
32. Id. ↑
33. 17 U.S.C. § 101 ↑
34. Id. ↑
35. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. ↑
36. Id. ↑
37. Michael Kondoudis,An EASY Guide to Trade Dress, Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, available at https://www.mekiplaw.com/guide-to-trade-dress/ ↑
38. Id. ↑
39. Id. ↑
40. Todd v. Mont. Silversmiths, Inc., 379 F Supp 2d 1110 (2005 DC Colo). ↑
41. Id. ↑
42. Vacheron and Constantin-LeCoultreWatches, Inc. v. Benrus Watch Co., Inc., 155 F. Supp. 932, 934-35 (S.D.N.Y.1957). ↑
43. Id. ↑
44. See Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977); Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), also see (17 U.S.C. § 501) and (17 U.S.C. § 102). ↑
45. How To Prove Copyright Infringement, Copyright Alliance, available at https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/copyright-infringement/how-to-prove-copyright-infringement/ ↑
46. See Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702 ↑
47. See in general 17 U.S. Code § 501 ↑
48. How To Prove Copyright Infringement, Copyright Alliance, available at https://copyrightalliance.org/education/copyright-law-explained/copyright-infringement/how-to-prove-copyright-infringement/ ↑
49. Id. ↑
50. Id. ↑
51. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) ↑
52. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) ↑
53. See Kyler Mejia, Trademarks: The Dilution Doctrine, Charity Lawyer (July 8, 2024), available at https://charitylawyerblog.com/2024/07/08/trademarks-the-dilution-doctrine/ ↑
54. Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 17-2798 (2d Cir. 2020) ↑
55. Id. ↑
56. Id. ↑
57. Id. ↑
58. Id. ↑
59. Id. ↑
60. Id. ↑
61. Id. ↑
62. Id. ↑
63. Celes Keene, Tiffany & Co. and Costco Wholesale Settle Trademark Dispute, klmechuk lawyers (Aug. 3, 2021) available at https://www.klemchuk.com/ideate/tiffany-costco-trademark-dispute-settles ↑
64. Id. ↑
65. Galatea Jewelry Corporation v. Swarovski North America Limited et al. No. 2:2017cv08737 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017) ↑
66. Anything Your Heart Designs: Swarovski Hit with Copyright Infringement of Galatea’s “Two In One Heart” Design, JD Supra, available at https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/anything-your-heart-designs-swarovski-88556/ ↑
67. Galatea Jewelry Corporation v. Swarovski North America Limited et al. No. 2:2017cv08737 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2017) ↑
68. Id. ↑
69. Id. ↑