Follow us

Menu
PARTNER WITH USFREE NEWSLETTER
VISIT TheIndustry.beauty

BACKLASH AGAINST ACCUSATIONS OF COPYCAT PRODUCTS

The Industry London
17 March 2012

Claire’s Accessories recently suffered a huge public backlash when London based jewellery designers Tatty Devine used their blog to compare their products with those being sold by Claire’s.

While it’s accepted as an industry norm in fashion that high street designers will often take inspiration from high end designers, wholesale copying is not. Given that Claire’s Accessories products were almost identical to Tatty Devine’s and that multiple products had been copied, Tatty Devine took the view that Claire’s Accessories had gone further than simply “taking inspiration” from their products and had copied them.

But the costs and difficulty of successfully pursuing an infringement claim through the courts means that fashion designers are often put off from bringing claims.

To rely on copyright or UK design right, a rights owner needs to show that the rights exist in the first place with the work being “original”, they own the rights and that a substantial part of the work has been reproduced.  Fashion designers will fall at the first hurdle if they can’t show that their products are original. It’s arguable that nothing is original in fashion since the industry is built on re-using trends and taking inspiration from others.

The introduction of a new Community design right, which caters for the seasonal production of ranges, has improved designers’ position somewhat by providing another right they can rely on.

It’s unsurprising then that designers Tatty Devine, who were guest speakers at The Industry years ago, looked for a more creative solution to get copycat products removed from the market rather than relying on copyright or UK or Community design  rights.

Posting on their blog an article entitled “spot the difference“, Tatty Devine compared their products with Claire’s Accessories’ products which were significantly cheaper.

Within 24 hours Claire’s Accessories was trending on Twitter and was awash with angry complaints on its Facebook page, which it was later accused of deleting. Some of the products complained of have since been removed from Claire’s Accessories’ website.

Their approach got products taken off the market quickly and was also cheaper in avoiding legal fees. But the use of social networks to remove copycat products from the market is not risk free. Social networks by their nature enable social interaction amongst many users which means that it’s very easy for any story published on the internet to take on a life of its own.  Some of the posts published on Tatty Devine’s blog following their “spot the difference” post included potentially false and defamatory statements against Claire’s Accessories. Tatty Devine has since closed the comments on this post following legal advice which no doubt warned of a defamation claim being brought against them.

Social network sites also have limitations – they can’t provide any financial compensation for the victims of copycat products, or guarantee that the copycat products will be permanently taken off the market.

For smaller labels and independent designers who can’t afford legal advice social network sites may be helpful in publicising copycat products, but they should be alive to the risks and limitations of using them.

 

By The Industry's Contributing Writer, Tamar Nathan

For more information on how IP rights can be used to protect businesses operating in the fashion sector please contact Tamar Nathan at [email protected].

Industry member Tamar Nathan is an Associate at City law firm Fox Williams LLP, and a member of the Fox Williams Fashion Law Group.   More information about the Fox Williams Fashion Law Group can be found on its dedicated fashion law website at www.fashionlaw.co.uk.

Free NewsletterVISIT TheIndustry.beauty
cross