B.A.F.F.L.E.D. Fashion Law

Fast Fashion Has In-Fighting Over Copies--

Retailer H&M is suing its fellow fast fashion colleague, Forever 21 over copyright infringement.  H&M claims Forever 21 is selling a "Beach Please" bag, distinctly made for H&M, which was also registered for a copyright this past June.  The sales have continued even after cease and desist letters.

The story here seems to be a tad bit more about the irony of one fast fashion retailer suing another.  Both are widely known for taking designs straight from the runway to their quick manufacturers, then sales floor within weeks.  Forever 21 is said to have commissioned one of their loyal Chinese manufacturers for the H&M bag copy.  Both retailers have been sued over copies in the past--several times. 

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.  Forever 21 is known for settling their infringement suits under the table.  Maybe this will be no different.   There are many arguments on both sides for protection of fashion designs expanding past prints and patterns.  Usually, the fight is between a luxury retailer and fast fashion giant...or even a boutique designer and established retailer.  How will 2 common infringers settle it? Nevertheless, there's something more to be hammered out here.  

For more on fashion law and infringement's damage, check out these posts!

B.A.F.F.L.E.D. Fashion Law

"I'll Just Get Another One"--Is Fast Fashion Killing Your Pocket?

When fashion first hit the map in the way we know it today--you know, when Charles Worth started putting labels with his name on them in the garments he made--consumers were not only buying custom pieces, but making investments.  We're a bit departed from that today.

Today, we quickly run to stores like Zara, H&M, or Forever 21 (me included, but I'm working on improving my ethical fashionista practices, ok?!).  While those stores give us the quick fix we need, often at their risk of an infringement lawsuit, they also present problems for our pocketbooks.  With a plethora of reasonably priced costume jewelry, t-shirts and dresses to last for a few wears, it's hard not to fall into the trap of spending.  Unfortunately, the trap is actually a spiral.

Going back to the days of Charles Worth, garments, and probably accessories, too were made to last.  Shoppers considered them investments.  They may have had to wear them a bit more often than we'd like to don outfits these days, but the pieces were solid.  They should have been, and should be.  They were quality.  Today, the garments at fast fashion outlets not only skirt the line of infringing on a designer's hard work (both established and new designers), but also put a hurting on the pocketbook--subconsciously.  

What consumers aren't considering when buying 5 dresses for $100 is, "they'll be back".  They'll be back soon.  Those $20 dresses will only last so long before falling victim to the washing machine or an easily snapped string one way or another.  At first blush, the response is--"I'll get another one."  Yep, and put more money into the hands of companies with questionable labor practices or terrible corporate cultures--the discriminatory and disrespectful kind.  (See Zara)  We'll continue to help the owners of Zara and H&M be 2 of the 10 richest people on the planet.  What's also happening is more money coming out of the consumer's pocket.  Every single time a purchase is made for a quick fix, it's less money to be spent on something made of better quality; something which will last longer and wear better.

Very few of us are completely innocent in feeding this bad habit.  Hopefully though, we'll all think twice when we turn down the $45 garment for 3-$50 ones.  Sometimes, that's a great deal.  Sometimes, it's a raw deal.

For more on ethical fashion, click here!

B.A.F.F.L.E.D. Fashion Law

Will Phone Check be the New Coat Check?

We've talked a number of times about the ease of infringement at fashion shows.  With New York Fashion Week closing today, it's a good time to think about how NYFW and fashion weeks across the States could be changing.  Unlike in Europe, America has no federal protection for fashion designs.  The utility argument continues.  This brings up the question of how and what designers will do to protect their precious works of art.  

New technology as a threat

With technology improving every day, and camera phones being so commonplace, designers could be expected to ban these devices from their shows.  Instead of checking your coat, you'll have to check your phone at the door.  Press would be allowed in, but forced to sign strict agreements on distribution of the photos they take.  It sounds outrageous, but is not far-fetched.  Infringement lawsuits are getting filed left and right these days.  With the quickness and ease of social media, designs are always in harms way.  

Everyone knows attendees quickly take photos of their favorite styles, send them to manufacturers and have them on the racks at places like Forever 21 faster than the original designer can make another for their own collection.  We've heard this line so many times before.  

Still not having federal legislation to protect fashion designs under copyright--only prints and patterns have this security--designers are constantly looking for something to protect themselves.  Otherwise, trademark and design patents are pretty much the only options.  

Should cities offer protection?  What can they do?

Many say there is no real harm to the lower-priced copies.  The shoppers at one price point are not the shoppers at another.  This debate will continue.  Should fashion week host cities come up with their own solutions?  Would you surrender your phone at the door of a fashion show?

What are your thoughts?