Despite court documents saying founders Do Won Chang and Jin Sook Chang have "no direct personal knowledge" of the garments, Magistrate Judge Victor Kenton last week denied Forever 21's motion to shield them from depositions. Forever 21 has been sued dozens of times for alleged intellectual property violations, but has settled such cases out of court, most recently with Trovata.

The two parties issued a joint statement through their lawyers late Friday, reading: "Trovata, Inc. and Forever 21, Inc., Forever 21 Retail, Inc., and Forever 21 Logistics, LLC had been involved in litigation with each other for the last two years. All companies have recently resolved their differences to their mutual satisfaction, without any admission as to liability, and the action has been dismissed. The terms of settlement are confidential."

*****

The first trial was significant in that it was the first time Forever 21 faced an actual jury, after being sued more than 50 times in alleged design infringement cases over the past four years. The retailer had settled all those cases out of court, as it did again in this instance.

Contemporary brand Trovata's lawsuit against giant retailer Forever 21 will see another day in court. Tentative dates have been scheduled for October for the award-winning fashion label's lawsuit against Forever 21, according to Trovata lawyer Frank Colucci. A lawyer representing Forever 21 confirmed a retrial will be scheduled for October.

The juror on the panel of six men and two women who blocked a Trovata win spoke with conviction after the mistrial. Stephen Sharp said design elements in Trovata garments weren't widely known and, therefore, any similar merchandise in Forever 21 stores didn't confuse the public about the brand.

"The jury is placed under difficult circumstances to be ad hoc fashion experts and the law is somewhat vague and contradictory," he said. "There is no impartial body analogous to the patent office. All of these things made it a difficult exercise to go through."

The seven other jurors didn't see things Sharp's way, which suggests the public may have sympathy for the small guys. Take juror Michael Marien, who said he'd had his intellectual property pilfered. "I know how it feels when somebody steals your stuff," he added.

Judge James V. Selna dismissed the jury after it failed to come to a decision. The jury had been deliberating since May 21. Trovata attorney Frank Colucci said he will request a new trial. A conference call is scheduled for June 16 between Judge Selna and the opposing attorneys to determine this case's next steps. "We'll have to start from scratch," Colucci said. Forever 21 attorney Bruce Brunda said the judge's decision gave little cause for celebration. "When you tie in a game, no one is happy," he said.

*****

To prove their points, lawyers fussed over the case's exhibits, which were racks of clothes produced by Trovata and Forever 21. Some of Forever 21 garments featured faithful copies of Trovata's idiosyncratic clothing labels, which made a reference to Trovata founder Sam Shipley.

*****

The Forever 21 knockoffs came at a crucial time, according to Colucci. In 2005, the new label had won the CFDA/Vogue Fashion Fund Award. Trovata’s reputation was rising, and its name and styles were frequently featured in fashion periodicals. Style-savvy Target Corp. broached the idea of Trovata designing a diffusion line for the mass-market retailer, according to John Whitledge, Trovata's chief executive. He turned down the offer because he thought it was not the right time for his new label to cut a deal with one of America's largest retailers. In 2007, Whitledge discovered that Forever 21 was selling fashions similar to his own Spring 2006 collection. He believed the alleged copies could damage his label’s chances to work and to collaborate with other large-volume retailers because it might be assumed that his label was doing business with Forever 21.

Forever 21 attorney Brunda told the jury that trade-dress rules do not apply in this case. Trovata is not a household name and mainstream consumers do not associate Trovata's claimed combination of elements with the label, he said. Trade-dress rules have been used for the most well-known businesses and their products, such as the golden arches sign being associated with McDonald’s restaurants or Hermes' Kelly handbag. Trovata also had no special claim to the horizontal stripes and colors on its Spring 2006 garments, Brunda said. Rather, these elements were common looks and were in the public domain.

The federal jury deliberating allegations that Forever 21 knowingly copied the designs of Trovata told a judge Tuesday that it was deadlocked. Judge James V. Selna disclosed in U.S. District Court here that he received a note from the panel expressing concern that one juror was incorrectly applying the law, as well as a perception of misconduct. He did not provide details, but said, "It's dangerous business starting to look for misconduct."

Selna said the jury of six men and two women had asked for legal clarifications. The jurors will return today in an effort to work out their differences and avoid a potential mistrial. They began deliberating on Friday.

The outcome of the case may clarify intellectual property rights in an era when knockoffs of runway looks often appear in specialty chains before designers’ original versions hit stores. The jury is considering whether the cheap chic retailer produced near-identical copies of pieces worn on the runway or published in magazines — in one instance with labels inside a hoodie that were unique to Trovata.

Trovata lawyer Frank Colucci asked Chang to examine the Forever 21 merchandise Trovata alleges was copied and the originals. Glancing at a Trovata striped cardigan and the alleged copy, Chang said, "Even at Gap, Old Navy and those stores, they sell this similar type of stripe. It is available at all places. I don't know why this became the issue...stripes, they are always similar." She said she didn't know how particular garments were made because "we simply trust the vendors and they manufacture the garment for us." Explaining Forever 21's merchandise selection process, Chang testified that vendors supply samples that are either approved or dropped by a buying team of six to seven members, which she heads. "We choose pretty ones," she said of the samples.

The team infrequently purchases clothing from retail competitors, and when it does it asks vendors to alter them for Forever 21 stores, she said. "Sometimes we purchase an item and then we request the vendor to change the design to make them attractive," Chang testified. "When the fabric is good, then we ask them to find that particular fabric for us."

Chang emphasized there has been continuing training at Forever 21 for the last four or five years to alert members of the buying team to items that might present legal issues. "We are reviewing all the items that might cause legal problems, but we thought this particular stripe [referring to a shirt that was allegedly copied] would not cause any problems, so we didn't review this," she said.

"Much the same as a music composer, [the designer] takes notes, chords, sharps and flats and combines them and arranges them to make original music," Trovata attorney Frank Colucci said in his opening statement to the jury of six men and two women. "The notes, the chords, the sharps and flats are all known; it is the way they are combined and arranged that make new music."

Forever 21's attorneys acknowledge that the designs are similar, but maintain the similarity does not constitute an infringement, contending that in most cases Trovata's claims are limited to uses of buttons and other relatively common materials. The lawsuit is "an attempt to come up with a back-door patent or back-door copyright," said lawyer Bruce Brunda, who is representing Forever 21.

"Much like a recipe for something like apple cobbler, Trovata is saying they didn't invent the apples or the cinnamon or the sugar, but they are claiming the right to the combination," Brunda told the jury.

The federal court case involves seven garments Forever 21 sold in its stores in 2007, said to look identical, or almost identical, to garments designed by Trovata and publicized on the runway or in magazines. One Forever 21 garment also had an inside label that was a near representation of Trovata's distinct label at the time.

Trovata's attorneys argued the alleged copying of the designs constituted trade dress infringement. Trade dress is the legal term for the visual appearance of a product that links it to a particular brand in consumers' minds. Trovata, which is headed by founder and designer John Whitledge, is seeking a multimillion-dollar award for actual and punitive damages.

*****

Under current law, only original prints or graphics on clothes can be copyrighted — as they are considered artwork — and Trovata's suit focuses on Forever 21's copying of its unique button placements, decorative stitching, fabric patterns and other details.

*****

In a March 13 order in the case, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Dolinger in Manhattan reprimanded Forever 21 for deceptive conduct during the discovery phase. He added, "We note the extraordinary litigating history of this company, which raises the most serious questions as to whether it is a business that is predicated in large measure on the systematic infringement of competitors' intellectual property." Gregory Gulia, an attorney for Anthropologie, said he believes Forever 21 is willing to risk the lawsuits because duplicating designer looks is a lucrative business strategy. Forever 21 has been sued more than 50 times for copyright infringement in the last three years. The retailer has settled such cases out of court.