Week 3

Workshop challenge

Select a designed object and highlight the key areas that may infringe copyright or require IP protection:

Immediately I think of Revolution make-up. I love them because they’re cheap, but I have no doubt they’re ripping off cosmetic brands such as Too Faced and Kat Von D.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Here is the ultimate list of copied brands that Revolution have infringed with copyright

Here is an in-depth analysis and comparison of the Too Faced Chocolate Bar palette versus the Revolution I Heart Chocolate palette – the author even concluded that Revolution’s dupe was great.
It’s not just Too Faced that Revolution have copied. I have found reviews from beauty bloggers that actually promote the Revolution dupes over the original brands:
Kat Von D’s Shade and Light palette / Revolution’s Ultra Eye Contour Light & Shade
Charlotte Tilbury’s K.I.S.S.I.N.G lipstick / Revolution’s Renaissance lipstick
Bobbi Brown’s Shimmer Brick Compact / Revolution’s Shimmer Brick

I have been researching into Too Faced’s trademarks and discovered from Justia Trademarks that they are registered under class 35. According to classification of goods (class 1-34) webpage, class 35 covers areas such as advertising, business management, business administration and office functions. However, class 3 is suitable for cosmetics (that aren’t for medical purposes – which is the category Too Faced would fall into). Upon further digging, I found that Too Faced have actually applied for class 3 trademark but it has resulted in abandonment so is not active. This could be a result from something being objected in the application for the trademark, and Too Faced not being able to resolve the issue (this could be something minor like proving the idea behind the branding/products are their own).

Kat Von D – status: active & Bobbi Brown – status: active. This begs the question why are Revolution still able to infringe on copyright?

My analysis/for the final workshop challenge:

• 

• 

• 

•