Imitation is flattering, but one fashion chain is accused of getting too close for comfort, writes Róisín Ingle
Two years ago a military-style jacket that was a dead ringer for a Marc Jacobs designer creation proved one of the biggest sellers for Penney's in Dublin, the budget-conscious fashionistas' shopping destination of choice. It was never going to last as long as Jacobs's original design but for a while the proud owner of this iconic clobber could delight in having acquired catwalk style at a fraction of the price.
Being able to carry off a Gucci-style dress you picked up for €30 in a chain store now has almost as much kudos as managing to look good in the real thing. In recent weeks fashion shows from Paris to New York will have been scrutinised by buyers for high-street brands who, having the advantage of cheap labour in the Far East, can turn around strikingly similar items for bargain prices and have them piled high in their shops, often before the designers can. Newspaper supplements show us how, in fashion terms, to "splurge" or to "steal". Magazines assess the "minted" or "skinted" approach. And these days everyone from yummy mummies to impoverished students could give a lecture in Getting the Look for Less.
But while designer dressing has never been more democratic, a case lodged against Dunnes Stores in the High Court this week should be watched carefully by anyone who has ever lusted after a Chloe dress but is content to snap up the far-cheaper Top Shop or Zara interpretation of the design.
The case has been brought by Coast, a part of retailing giant Mosaic, which alleges that Dunnes infringed its intellectual property rights by allegedly producing a bow-tie style top which the company claims is almost identical to one produced by them. Karen Millen, also part of Mosaic, is claiming a "new and novel" striped shirt was copied by the Irish store, which now faces a multi-million euro lawsuit. But proving their striped shirt is either "new" or "novel" in the first place is just as difficult as it sounds.
One legal source described how in cases concerning similar logos, market research where members of the public are shown the two items at issue and asked to make a judgement on how similar or not they are is often accepted as evidence in court. In other cases the judge will make the decision. However, where two pieces of clothing are at issue, fashion experts are likely to be called in and asked to explain the intricacies of the cut, colour and style of the tops in question. The case is made all the more complex by the fact that it hinges on an unregistered design right, a right contained in an EU directive created to protect items that have a degree of originality. The distinctive Paul Smith stripe is easy to identify, for example, but the lawyers will have more of a task settling the Karen Millen/Dunnes Stores row.
For the most part, the big-name designers have viewed the widespread imitation of clothing and accessories as the sincerest form of flattery, although there are signs that they may be becoming less tolerant. Designer Jimmy Choo recently went after Marks and Spencer for a £9.50 evening bag alleged to be an imitation of its £495 silk pouch. The two came to an undisclosed financial settlement and along the way M&S gained a bit of street cred for trying to go high fashion. Last year in the UK, Monsoon and H&M took Primark/Penney's to court for allegedly copying some of their designs and the case was also settled out of court.
And while boutique chains may be annoyed at what they perceive as attempts by larger department stores to steal their arguably more upmarket style, some view the action as the the fashion equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black.
Irishman Martin Raymond, a respected consumer analyst with London-based company Future Technology, insists that when it comes to fashion retailers, "they all copy the big-name designers so a case like this is a bit rich".
"I think if one of the top designers was going after Dunnes there would be a stronger, better case. I'm surprised that it's a retailer chasing another retailer because everyone knows how these collections are put together," he says. The fact that Coast and Karen Millen have been taken over by Mosaic makes their case weaker than if they were independent fashion houses, he maintains.
"What you get now in these stores is what I call design by committee; it is very difficult for them to have a credible argument when it is common practice to plunder the designer collections, pick the best pieces and flog them back to consumers as your own interpretation."
Raymond refers to UK brand Primark as "Primarni" or "Pradamark" because of the chain's fondness for paying unashamed and cut-price homage to designer labels.
"Either Mosaic are really convinced that their products are being infringed or they just want to warn other retailers off because, in fairness to them, they probably spend more money on fabrics, design and finishes than the likes of Dunnes Stores. It might also be a way of getting some publicity for their brands and reminding people that generally their products are better quality."
Still, proving the case will be difficult because "neither parties are so outstanding that they have a signature style that marks them out as unique". In the meantime, get thee to the chain-stores - those cut-price designer lookalikes may have an even shorter shelf life than we thought.