Jae Nah was in business only a few years when he noticed his company’s textile prints appearing on the racks of the nation’s largest retailers.

Nah, founder of L.A. Printex Industries Inc., had never sold his prints to those companies. As more retailers and manufacturers purchased knock-off versions of his prints, he said he watched his business plummet and was forced to lay off half his 70 employees.

So Nah took matters into his own hands. Eighteen months ago, he began filing lawsuits against companies he claims infringed on his copyrights, a list that includes Wal-Mart Stores Inc., J.C. Penney Co. Inc., Target Corp. and Macy’s. He also sent dozens of cease-and-desist letters.

So far, he has obtained 15 settlements.

“We lost a lot of money already,” said Nah, who said he spends $15,000 on each design he creates. “With the copyright law, we are collecting back the money we lost.”

L.A. Printex is not alone. Other local print firms, which sell reams of fabric with artwork woven as the designs on skirts and blouses, have filed copyright infringement suits to protect their patterns.

But retailers and clothing manufacturers, often the defendants in such suits, say that the suits are less about infringement and more about money. “They’re copyright grabbers, and it’s absolutely destroying the industry,” said Ilse Metchek, executive director of the California Fashion Association. “They are finding a way to make some money on these nuisance lawsuits.”

‘Unimportant prints’


Copyright infringement suits in the garment industry have been tying up the federal courts in recent years, particularly in Los Angeles.

Such suits are relatively new in textile manufacturing, which encompasses an intricate web of smaller companies. Many of the patterns found on clothes are originally purchased by printers, which turn the artwork into something that can be used on clothes and sell the finished textile design to apparel manufacturers.

In the past, many print firms had little interest in paying $250 to register for a copyright on a design. Now, textile printers use the law to prevent retailers and manufacturers from buying knock-offs of their prints at discounted prices.

“It’s almost like jumping on somebody’s name and keeping that name on the Internet and then the person who owns that name finds out their name is being used,” Metchek said.

Many of the recent suits involve prints that have been in the public domain for years, maybe even created by other print firms, she said. Others are obtained without anyone determining whether they bear a striking resemblance to other designs in the market.

“They’re little bitsy unimportant prints,” Metchek said. “A poodle is a poodle. A polka dot is a polka dot. A checkerboard is a checkerboard. If you put a dot in the middle, it is not unique.”

But such copyrights are easily obtained and can be highly effective when brought against retailers.

Tony Hoffman, president of Hoffman California Fabrics, which files half a dozen copyright suits each year, said he has successfully obtained settlements in most of his cases. While some of his suits end up costing too much in attorney fees, he admits he makes a small profit by enforcing his copyrights. “Normally, we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they’ve infringed, and they’re willing to step up and settle before you file a lawsuit,” he said

One of the most active print shops in the local courts is L.A. Printex, which has sued to protect about 20 of its designs. The company, founded four years ago, registered for many of its copyrights in 2003 and 2004, just before filing suits. None of its cases has been dismissed, according to the company’s lawyer, Stephen Doniger.

Most recently, L.A. Printex obtained a settlement from a garment supplier, a textile printer and Wal-Mart, which purchased clothes with a specific flower design allegedly copyrighted by L.A. Printex.

Terms of the settlement were undisclosed.

L.A. Printex has cases pending against Macy’s, Target and Mervyn’s.

Another case, against J.C. Penney and its suppliers, is expected to go to trial in January. That case is “in excess of $1 million,” said a second L.A. Printex lawyer, Doug Linde.