From the Files of AttorneyScott – C. Wonder Allegedly Flies Too Close to the Sun; is Charged with Infringement

ATTORNEYSCOTT COMMENTARY:

From time to time I will post about a piping hot and fresh new case that our firm has been retained to handle, and has filed in Federal Court. The material that I will post will be from our files and/or the public record, and will reflect claims of copyright infringement against parties alleged to be content thieves or to be otherwise involved in the chain of distribution for infringing, fake, and/or counterfeit goods. Tune in for the first such installment below.

***

Z Paneva Studios v. C. Wonder, LLC; et al.

Some of you may already be familiar with the C. Wonder brand and its somewhat complicated story of coming into being. In short, C. Wonder is the newest project for Chris Burch, a man known for, amongst other things, his reported-to-be turbulent relationship with lifestyle brand magnate Tory Burch, a company with which he may or may not still have involvement.

Through C. Wonder, Burch sells home wares, accessories, and other odds and ends that remind some people very much of the items sold by T. Burch. In addition, one shiny new line of C. Wonder products is alleged to misappropriate certain works done by artist Zlatka Paneva at Z Paneva Studios. Ms. Paneva was not approached by C. Wonder or any of its agents or vendors prior to these pieces being sold by C. Wonder. Ms. Paneva’s pieces are the first and the third images below, while the items that were offered for sale by C. Wonder are the second and the fourth:

There are other examples, but I think you, kind reader, get the picture.

If you have any questions or comments about the above matter, please feel free to email me at [email protected]

-ATTORNEYSCOTT

7 comments

  • This isn’t a comment about this article at all really, but I could find no way to comment to you directly about the recent owl knitting pattern article that has now been deleted. It was particularly interesting. The original poster had claimed Debenhams had stolen her pattern, for which they settled in an amicable fashion without agreeing with her ownership of the design . It then transpired the owl pattern was not originated by her at all, and Debenhams had been perhaps a little duped. It was a particularly interesting case for the archives of ytwwn. Could I ask why it was deleted rather than left here?

  • I also had come to comment on the owl sweater article but can’t find it?!!

    I told my mum, who is an avid knitter, about the possible design theft by Debenhams. She produced an photo of herself in the early 1970s wearing a very similar sweater that her mother had knitted for her! I highly doubt that Kate invented the pattern and was not inspired from elsewhere…

  • AttorneyScott

    Hello Anon1 and Sarah G:

    Because the majority of the articles posted here are submitted by our viewers, the people that post have the option of removing their post should the situation that they posted about be resolved.

    My understanding is that the individual that posted the owl sweater article decided to remove it from the site. It’s a shame because it was an interesting discussion. I would encourage future posters to leave their posts on the site and simply add a message to the original post stating that the issue has been resolved.

    -ATTORNEYSCOTT

  • Thanks for replying. It seems an odd way to run the site, that people are allowed to delete content themselves. They have also deleted my content. There seems little point in me ever posting here if the article originator can just delete entire articles and all content whenever they chose. It creates a very unhealthy balance and bias, and effectively gives the ability to silence critics completely. It also means, as in the case of the owl sweater, they can make a claim against another party, be revealed as actually being no better themselves, but then clear all evidence of any of it ever occurring. Seems ridiculous. If the rest of the internet operated this way it would be a farce, as it is here. I doubt I’ll ever post here again tbh.

  • I don’t know how copyists live with themselves….

  • ATTORNEYSCOTT

    Anon1:

    Thank you for your comments. One of the purposes of the site is to encourage dialogue and resolution between the artists and alleged infringers. If viewers of the site would prefer we do things differently, please let us know, as we are always looking for ways to improve the site. I can be reached at [email protected].

  • Since no one has commented on the case at hand, I guess that it goes without saying that the thievery of artistic content in this case is undeniable and indefensible.

    The laziness of doing this and the balls to do it without changing a thing…sheesh !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*