About Cascade and the FTC: Back in November, one of the principals in Cascade visited my LYS to sell yarn. He’s the son of the original founders/owners.

I happened to stop by the shop that afternoon (wearing a Cascade 220 sweater by coincidence!). When we were introduced, I asked him whether they’d filed an FTC complaint and if they hadn’t, why they didn’t.

He told me that the whole thing was “up to the lawyers” and he didn’t know if they’d filed such a complaint or if it had been considered.

I wasn’t impressed, to say the least. I am even less impressed now.

For the record, I’ve got six recent Sierras in the listings:

Sierra
Double Knitting – 8 ply 100% Wool
Crystal Palace Yarns 1995

Sierra
Worsted – 10 ply 80% Cotton, 20% Wool
Cascade Yarns 2002

Sierra
Worsted – 10 ply 80% Wool, 20% Alpaca
Peruvian Collection (Elann) 2003

Sierra
Bulky – 12 ply 45% wool, 20% Viscose, 20% Polyamide, 15% Angora
Lang Yarns 2003

Sierra Aran
Aran 80% Wool, 20% Alpaca
Peruvian Collection (Elann) 2006

Sierra Lana
14-Ply Super Bulky 100% Pure New Wool
Manukau Wools, Ltd. (New Zealand) 2001

Sierra as a unique name? I laugh.

On the topic of yarn names, Cascade has a new cotton called “Luna” – but On Line has had a yarn by that name for at least a couple of years.

Should On Line (distributed in the US by KFI) now go after Cascade?

I suspect some of this posturing may simply be due to testosterone poisoning.

But.

The error in Cashsoft content, according to Westminster Fibers, was not in the cashmere. Apparently the cashmere quantity was accurate. It was the acrylic content, which was 40% instead of 33%. (Their statement leads to the conclusion that it contained less wool than labelled, but not less cashmere.)

It is not clear whether the lack of cashmere is a qualitative or a quantitative one. There could very well be cashmere in these yarns, just not very good cashmere. It could completely stem from the definition of “cashmere”. Are we going by the definition in force in the U.S. as of January 1, 2007 (19 micron diameter) or by something else? For example, if you want to know what legally passes for cashmere in Canada, search me — aside from the fact that it has to come from the right goat, I couldn’t find a quantitative definition of cashmere for Canada. As pointed out earlier in the comments (in another post–sorry, not checking right now), it’s possible to reveal the presence of goat (cashmere) fibres by a test, yet not have “cashmere” according to a legal definition. We don’t know what standard each of these labs used for their qualitative analysis; if they were going by fibre diameter only, then what if they did confuse cashmere for merino, because it happened to be 19.5 microns or 20 microns?

The point is, I guess, that despite the apparent wealth of information we’ve been provided on the tests commissioned by The Knit With, by Cascade, by Designer Yarns, and by KFI, we, the public, still don’t have enough information to actually determine which tests are meaningful. Cascade could be right if we apply a standard of a maximum fibre diametre. But KFI could be right if we don’t. Cascade could be right if it turns out that the cashmere suppliers were ripping off the mills. But then that explains why there were mysterious, incomplete test reports for Italian mills circulated, that indicated the presence of the promised cashmere.

But the way Cascade went about it is just about the worst way they could have done from an optics standpoint. They didn’t bring a private action (if that sort of thing is possible in the US); if they filed a complaint with the FTC to get the FTC to investigate, they didn’t say so; they just dragged their retailers into the mess and they named names on the basis of apparently one set of tests. If we assume that KFI is telling the truth about the tests it had done — an assumption that can be difficult to make, given their public behaviour and reported behaviour — then we’re left with a battle of expert opinion over cashmere content, and that’s not enough for the public to convict a distributor of ripping them off.

Why didn’t Cascade spring for more testing if it was going to embark on this PR campaign? (If you’re going to start claiming that your competitors’ yarns lack their claimed cashmere content — a very actionable tort if it turns out not to be true — you’d think that it would be wise to make sure that more than one testing lab arrived at the same conclusion.) If they felt compelled to write to all their retailers, why didn’t they also do something to prove that they themselves had bought into their position, such as provide a copy of a complaint they had filed with the FTC? A battery of tests? Tests of a control sample that they knew contained cashmere, performed at the same time, so that we know what type of quality passed for cashmere in these labs?

Carol (the hat one): and that is why I hugged my knees and grinned goofily when I saw this. Litigation karma.

Saun: the location in which a business is established does not have to be the determining factor in whether they can be liable for trademark infringement, passing off, or some other type of tort in another country. There are the issues of whether the alleged wrongful act took place, and where the harm was suffered. A Canadian distributor doing business in the territory in which the plaintiff has rights may be liable for a wrongful act that is completed in the U.S. elann offers, sells, and ships its products to U.S. customers; it has a return address in the U.S. for U.S. customers; it advertises in U.S. publications (although not necessarily its specific yarn brands).

Knitress, the U.S. trademark dilution law can be applied to unregistered marks. But Cascade would also have to prove that their mark is “famous” in order to succeed on that claim.

Kathy: Actually, I had been checking the filings for another knitting-related purpose…

I didn’t understand why they didn’t pursue the cashmere complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, which is charged with enforcing the relevant law. And if they don’t have a trademark on the yarn name, I can’t see that they have any claim on trademark dilution.

Let alone unfair competition.