DA COACH Without the fear of sounding sexist (because I don’t really care what people think!), when you say “Coach” to men in Chicago it can only mean Mike Ditka and when you say it to women, it is a leather handbag. A purse that is not expensive or exclusive enough to be considered a designer bag; but still held in esteem by some. I have passed the store on Michigan Avenue for years and have never ventured in. At their web site (www.coach.com), new styles start at about $150; but at their outlet site (www.coachoutlets-stores.com) the bags only cost about $60. So if one can buy a genuine Coach purse for $60; why would one bother buying a knock-off?

I first read the story about the manufacturer of Coach bags suing the City of Chicago in Shia Kapos’ column, “Taking Names”, last Friday, in Crain’s Chicago Business (www.chicagobusiness.com). The city is being sued (Coach Inc. v. City of Chicago, 10cv3108, in the Northern District of Illinois) because they have failed to take measures to halt the sale of counterfeit Coach Bags at the Maxwell Street Market. "Defendants are well aware of the extraordinary fame and strength of the Coach brand, the Coach trademarks, the Coach trade dresses and the Coach design elements and the incalculable good will associated therewith," the complaint reads. Bloomberg News reports that, “The New York-based leather goods maker is seeking statutory damages of $2 million for each counterfeit item and mark, as well as a court order directing the city to "recall" and deliver to Coach all of the offending items.”

Two vendors and 100 unnamed “John Does” were also named as defendants. One of them was accused of selling 135 fake Coach purses. The lawsuit claims that a Coach investigator went to the market in August, 2009 and saw vendors selling “counterfeit Coach products in plain view.” Two vendors were subsequently arrested by Chicago police for selling a Coach knock-off for $18 and a Chanel fake for $24. But, when a Coach investigator returned to the market earlier this year, Coach knock-offs were still being sold with impunity, the lawsuit states. In December, Coach sent a “cease and desist” notice to the city demanding a crackdown to stop the illegal activity. But the sales persist.

Because the city is allegedly sustaining a street market where counterfeit goods are sold, they can be held responsible. Not being an attorney (but I play one on television), I might not be totally correct here, but the theory seems to be of the same genre that allows police to investigate and prosecute property owners who permit or encourage criminal activity to occur on their property.

According to the law department section of the City of Chicago web site, “Attorneys review the police reports, meet with potential witnesses and visit the subject property with police personnel in order to determine which cases to prosecute. Attorneys also meet with community groups to determine which properties harbor criminal activity in their neighborhood. The Department of Buildings conducts inspections on all problem buildings referred by police for Drug and Gang House prosecution. Prosecutors file cases against property owners in either Administrative Hearings or Circuit court and seek, not only fines, but abatement measures to curb crime at the property.”

So if the City can prosecute landlords who, even unknowingly, allow criminal activity at their property, it would make sense that the City could be sued for permitting Maxwell Street vendors to sell illegal counterfeit goods on city property.

So now we, the legal-abiding taxpayers of Chicago, not the offending vendors, will have to pay the attorney's fees to defend the City in this lawsuit. Maybe we can pay the bill with counterfeit money.