Interview magazine sues Gitano clothing company

Interview magazine’s lawsuit against Gitano turned a proposed advertising partnership into a dispute over a name and its visual identity. In 1986, after learning that Gitano was making Interview-branded clothes, the magazine pursued legal action; when the company changed the name to Innerview and revised its logo, Interview continued the suit, judging the resemblance unresolved.

From Magazine Brand to Clothing

By 1976, Interview had become a glamorous publication whose celebrity appeal helped attract people who wanted to appear in it. Its pages also featured photographs of previously unpublished young men and women, under headings such as Interman, Viewgirl, Upfront, and First Impression. The magazine’s public identity therefore extended beyond its interviews: its name and image carried value that could be used in fashion and advertising.

The conflict emerged through a potential commercial collaboration. Gitano had approached Interview about a joint ad campaign, and the magazine learned in that context that the company was making Interview clothes. What might have been a partnership instead drew attention to the use of the magazine’s name on apparel.

The Suit and the Changed Branding

The diary records the financial threshold the magazine considered before proceeding. Filing papers would cost $30,000, and Interview was prepared not to pursue the case if the required bond proved too high. The bond was $10,000, so the magazine went ahead. The account presents the decision as a calculation about whether the legal process was affordable, not as an abstract stand on branding.

Gitano then changed the clothing name from Interview to Innerview. It also said it would use block lettering for its logo, but later switched to script lettering. A colleague at Interview felt that the revised version still looked like the magazine’s name and identity; the magazine therefore continued suing. The changed spelling did not, in the account’s telling, settle the dispute because the perceived resemblance persisted across both the wording and the logo.

An Ongoing Dispute

The diary describes the lawsuit as still going on in September 1986, without recording a judgment or final outcome. Its account is concrete about the sequence—an approach about a joint campaign, discovery of Interview-branded clothes, the decision to pay the bond, and Gitano’s successive changes—but leaves the legal resolution open.

That unfinished sequence makes the episode a small but revealing collision between Interview’s editorial glamour and its commercial identity. The magazine had built a recognizable name through its celebrity-facing pages; once that name appeared on clothes, a prospective advertising relationship became a reason to litigate. The record captures the dispute at the point when rebranding had not ended it.