Cookie banner

This site uses cookies. Select "Block all non-essential cookies" to only allow cookies necessary to display content and enable core site features. Select "Accept all cookies" to also personalize your experience on the site with ads and partner content tailored to your interests, and to allow us to measure the effectiveness of our service.

To learn more, review our Cookie Policy, Privacy Notice and Terms of Use.

clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

The Judge for the Gucci Vs. Guess Case Has Some Sassy Things to Say About Fashion

Case closed, via <a href="">Telegraph</a>
Case closed, via Telegraph

Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, who presided over the Gucci vs. Guess copyright case, brought some sass to what must otherwise have been a fairly dry 104-page opinion brief. Delivered yesterday, the document scolds both parties for, essentially, wasting everyone's time. Here's what she wrote:

Over the past three years, the parties have put in countless hours and spent untold sums of money, all in the service of fashion—what Oscar Wilde aptly called 'a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.' It is my hope that this ugliness will be limited to the runway and shopping floor, rather than spilling over into the courts.

She did find it in her anti-fashion heart to award Gucci with a $4.66 million payout courtesy of Guess, but it could be a lot worse. Gucci was gunning for $120 million, claiming that Guess was trying to "Gucci-ize" their label with direct knockoffs. Scheindlin chastised Gucci's damages analysis, calling it "highly speculative." Consider them told.
· All Gucci Coverage [Racked]
· All Guess Coverage [Racked]