Textile Copyright Case Has Document Problem
L.A. Printex Industries Inc., a fabric design house and printer that has filed at least 29 court cases in nearly three years accusing fabric printers, clothing manufacturers and retailers of stealing its designs, hit a judicial snag in one of its cases.
In a U.S. District Court hearing in Los Angeles, a judge threw out a document that Jae S. Nah, head of L.A. Printex, said was signed Jan. 23, 2002, when, in fact, it was signed Aug. 10, 2004. Three days later, on Aug. 13, 2004, he filed his lawsuit against Macy’s Inc., Federated Department Stores Inc., J.C. Penney Corp. Inc., Gottschalks Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp.,Marshalls of California, Great Escape apparel manufacturing company, U.F.N. Textile Group Inc. and Seoul Texprint Inc.
The design ownership certification stated that Nah had purchased a lace design, which is at the center of the lawsuit, from Studio Bernini in Italy. According to court documents, in 2004, Nah apparently demanded that Alessandro Bernini, head of Studio Bernini, produce some kind of document affirming their deal, which L.A. Printex said was negotiated in 2002.
Originally, Nah claimed his company had created the fabric design but later, at a deposition, he admitted it was not an original design but a re-creation of a pattern developed by the Italian company, which he modified slightly and registered as his own.
Attorneys representing the various retailers, fabric companies and manufacturers tried to have the case dismissed because of the false document being discussed at the Aug. 28 hearing. Referring to Nah’s claim that his company was the original designer of the fabric in question, David Quinto, one of the attorneys representing Seoul Texprint in Los Angeles, which also does business as CAFA Seoul Texprint Inc., said, “This is not the first instance of perjury by Mr. Nah in this case.”
But U.S. District Judge George H. King declined to dismiss the case, allowing L.A. Printex to produce other proof it had purchased the design from Italy. However, the judge told Nah and his attorney, Douglas Linde, to think long and hard before going forward with this case, in which Nah is asking for up to $10 million in damages. “You and your client may want to assess the nature of this case,” King told Linde. “It might not be in the best interest of your client.”
The judge ordered L.A. Printex to pay defendants’ attorneys’ fees charged for the time spent working around the backdated design ownership certification.
The defense was disappointed that the case wasn’t dismissed but said it was gaining ground. “We think the judge has made it clear that he has serious doubt about Mr. Nah’s credibility,” said Michael Baum, the attorney for the retailers and Great Escape.
However, Linde said Nah plans to go forward with the case. “The evidence is clear,” he said. “The defendants pirated the design.”
Linde noted that L.A. Printex made a mistake by backdating its document after writing a check in 2002 for $1,500 to acquire a set of designs from Bernini. “At that time, they didn’t get anything in writing other than the receipt and the check,” Linde said. “The case is clear that you don’t need to get anything in writing at the time. What happened is that two years later, when they signed a document, they dated it January 2002, when in fact they should have dated it August 2004.”
Linde said Nah’s company registered the design with the U.S. Copyright office in 2002.
L.A. Printex claims that its lace-like design was copied by textile converters and manufacturers and used in thousands of garments sold at various retail chains. The defendants in the case maintain they weren’t using a stolen design.
—Deborah Belgum
