Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Curtailing Copycat Couture: The Past, Present, and Future of the Intellectual
Annie Sheoran
Curtailing Copycat Couture: The Past, Present, and Future of the Intellectual
rent area of Los Angeles. Twenty two years later, in 2006, the company reached $1
billion in revenues. And currently the fashion retailer operates more than 450 stores in
equipped with 151 fitting rooms in New York City's Times Square selling trendy clothing
at affordable prices (Billard, 2010). However, the "cheap-chic" fast fashion giant,
Forever 21, has an interesting twist in its success story: the mega retailer has no design
team of its own ( Casabona, 2007) . Instead, it picks up the latest run-way hits,
duplicates them, and sells them at a considerably low price, sometimes even before the
originals hit their own markets (Ferla, 2007). Surprisingly, Forever 21 is not doing
anything impermissible by the law. While many designers, like Anna Sui and Diane Von
Furstenberg (Wilson, 2007), have filed lawsuits against Forever 21, this era of copycat
couture offers the designers limited legal remedies. This is because the U.S.
intellectual property (IP) law, currently does not provide protection for an actual fashion
design itself, but only the logos and brand names of fashion houses as well as the fabric
prints used on garments (Gottlieb, 2010). As a result, companies like Simonia Fashions
sell identical copies of a Tory Burch dress worth $760 for only $260 (Wilson, 2007). This
lack of protection for fashion designs stems from U.S. copyright law itself, which states
that copyright protection does not extend to useful articles. Fashion is not seen as an art
form in the 21st century and, thus, one of the most creative aspects of the fashion
industry- the actual design of the garments- receives no effective legal protection under
Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind for which a monopoly is
assigned to designated owners by law (Wikipedia, n.d). IP law is vital because the act of
imitation is rarely seen as a form of flattery among the artists of 21st century. But where
do the legal boundaries draw themselves between whats inspired and copied? Fashion
has long enjoyed a trickle down effect the popular styles on runways soon enough
always find themselves on the racks of high street stores even before models can turn
around. In such cases, designers lose the incentive to innovate and the opportunity to
gain goodwill and reputation. This issue is even more severe for independent designers
and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), who do not have the manufacturing,
production, and financial capabilities of major fashion houses and retailers. For
Kennedy's wedding gown, copiers sold 8 million copies , while Rodriguez was able to
sell only forty-five (Paul, n.d). In the past, the original designers maintained their
position as "innovators" of new trends because copyists could begin their widespread
imitations only once the original designers delivered their designs to the market. But
maintaining the same position is nearly impossible in the Internet Age: for instance
photos from the ongoing New York's fashion week are already available online.
Knockoffs flood stores long before the originals arrive (Wilson, 2007). Therein lies the
chief problem. As industry expert Gioia Diliberto notes, " designer's success depends on
up first, the power is lost. " IP law provides a fast and relatively simple means of gaining
protection for an original piece of work. And it indeed is the best solution to the
designer's dilemma.
CURTAILING COPYCAT COUTURE
3
The debate surrounding IP protection in the fashion industry dates back to the
early 1900s and has been an ongoing topic on the U.S. legislative table for several
decades. Copying has long been a widespread practice throughout the world and U.S.
fashion industry has had a "rich tradition of knocking off European designs" from as
early as the inter-world war periods (Sprigman, 2006). For instance, in search of " line-
for-line copies" of Paris couture originals, 2000 women went to Ohrbachs " semi-annual
measuring each seam of the original design, and returning to the United States to
manufacture copies from their notes, did not stop the U.S. manufacturers from imitating
the designs and soon knockoffs catapulted to fill the U.S. retail market. As this practice
Fashion Originators' Guild of America. Established in 1932, the Guild monitored retailers
by giving " red-cards" to those who sold knockoffs and keeping a record of original
designs (Surowiecki, 2007). The Supreme Court's first fashion design protection case
arose in 1941 against the Guild. The Court ruled that the Guild's requirement that
designers should register their original sketches was a restriction of trade. Thus, the
Court effectively ended the first design protection scheme that this country has
witnessed and marked the beginning of the legal copycat couture that still prevails
today. The IP framework prevalent in fashion designs today is essentially the same as
that which existed in the 1930s during the era of the Fashion Originators' Guild.
market because it still has to completely develop the IP regime that explicitly protects
fashion designs. U.S. is one of the few remaining markets that is still tolerant towards
CURTAILING COPYCAT COUTURE
4
the " copy-and-sell scheme, whereas, the two markets- European Union and Japan-
that along with the United States lead the fashion industry have already adopted laws
that protect fashion designs. A vast majority of the European countries, especially the
western European countries, have domestic legislation. For instance, in France, the
famous Declaration des droits de lhomme of 1789, was issued during the revolution,
which was " the fundamental right of a human being to own the creators of his mind "
and therefore, IP protection is vital and sacred (Coblence, n.d). In addition, the statistics
reflect the amazing wealth of creativity of Italian fashion, of French fashion, of Japanese
fashion which are governing under the IP framework. In most civilized and industrialized
nations, the protection is an efficient deterrent, whereas, in the U.S. there is a certain
While the current trademark law can adequately protect logos, names, and
other symbols placed on apparel, it does not extend to the entire apparel. The Lanham
Act, which governs federal trademark law, defines a trademark as a word or symbol
used by a manufacturer to "identify and distinguish his or her goods . . . from those
manufactured or sold by others. " For example, the law protects a Louis Vuitton purse
with the renowned LV logo, but it does not provide enough rights to prevent the actual
designs from being imitated and sold in the markets at a significantly lower price and
before the actual designs hit their own markets. Alternatively, designers can turn to U.S.
patent law, which issues the utility and design patents, that provides the most robust
form of IP protection for productive inventions and original designs. Design patents in
(USPTO, 2005). " However, the rigid criteria, such as presenting a non obvious
improvement over prior art, for patent qualification have averted designers from seeking
this option for fashion designs. This scenario leaves the U.S. copyright law as the final
and most logical option for the protection of fashion designs as it protects " original
works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression (17U.S.C, 2006). "
convenient to obtain, as the designs acquire constructive legal protection at the instant
they are drawn on paper. But the copyright protection extends only to the completely
decorative elements of the garment, like the patterns or images on the fabric, and not to
the design itself. It excludes "useful articles" that have intrinsic utilitarian functions but
protects "original expressions which include graphics and text (Wade, n.d).
against fashion design piracy, but no bill has yet been passed. In 2016, we saw a surge
of legislative activity for fashion design protection. The constant evolution of these bills
and the ongoing debates on curtailing copycat couture illustrates the concerns and
increasing need of fashion design protection. The first version of the Design Piracy and
Protection Act (DPPA) was presented on March 30, 2006 by Representative Bob
(CFDA), the bill was stalled in the committee as it faced opposition, most notably from
the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). The most recent DPPA was
and substantially similar standards, outlines the proposed searchable fashion design
database, and provides three year term of protection. Furthermore, on August 5, 2010
Senator Schumer introduced the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention
Act (IDPPPA) in the Senate. Recently, Representative Robert Goodlatte also introduced
the IDPPPA in the House, and it was subsequently referred to the House Committee on
Competition and the Internet (Wade, n.d.). Like its predecessor, the IDPPPA would
amend 1301 of the Copyright Act to extend protection to fashion designs. The
IDPPPA limits the term "Fashion design" to the original elements or arrangements of the
article of apparel to those that are the result of a designers own creative endeavor; "and
protection of designs and the productivity of the fashion market, it nonetheless has not
struck a balance between the benefits of copying and moral rights. Moreover,
ownership model, in a digital world, will lead to the most innovation? One of the future
provide a private, contractual means for designers, retailers, and fashion houses to
enter into mutually beneficial agreements to exploit their fashion designs. Another ideal
route could be the right of attribution as it would achieve the goal of protecting the name
of the designer without upsetting the system. Designers strive hard to build a brand
CURTAILING COPYCAT COUTURE
7
name and to create a unique aesthetic. Throughout history, designers have sought to
protect their attribution rights in their collections such as the thumbprint labels in
Madeleine Vionnets atelier (Wade, n.d.). Compared to the other moral rights, the right
of attribution " the artists right to insist that her name continue to be associated with
work she has produced and to insist that her name not be used on work she has not in
concern for emerging designers (Wade, n.d). In the alternative, the Council of Fashion
Designers of America could create a collective mark in which designers who are part of
the organization would be able to join and, thus, implement a fashion mark mechanism.
The CFDA then could set standards for original designs, which may be similar to the
proposed substantially identical standard in the IDPPPA. Like the right of attribution, the
fashion mark mechanism, would strike a balance between moral rights and creative
freedom without making a drastic change to the IP regime in the fashion industry.
The advent of the Internet and the advancement of digital technologies has
greatly affected the fashion industry and other industries. Fashion copycats may now
easily reproduce designs at low costs and make the imitations available at market-
shattering time by taking digital photographs of fashion items on the couture runway and
fashion world, fashion houses have a new pressure to protect their IP because the line
between design infringement and " pure inspiration" has become even more blurred. In
light of these changing circumstances, the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy
Prevention Act strives to strike a balance between the need to protect innovative
designs and the need to provide enough legal flexibility for fair use of these designs. Yet
CURTAILING COPYCAT COUTURE
8
the IDPPPA on its own is not fully robust and has its shortcomings such as increased
costs and a narrow scope of application. Thus, this essay proposed that, in order to
establish a mutually beneficial relationship among the fashion house, designer, and
retailer and extract the most value out of each fashion design's IP, IDPPPA be coupled
with a licensing business model, right of attribution or a fashion mark mechanism. The
price tags on the " cheap-chic" outfits at Forever 21 may increase by a few dollars with
the implementation of this robust protection model. But a brighter, healthier, and more
vigorous future for the fashion industry in which collective efforts, rather than imitation,
fosters the creation of innovative designs is definitely worth more than the few extra
dollars.
References
https://www.forbes.com/largest-private-companies/list
Mary Billard. (2010, June 24). Park As Long As You Like. N.Y. Times at E6.
Liza Casabona. (2007, July 23). Retailer Forever 21 Facing a Slew of Design
Lawsuits, Womens Wear Daily. ( " Forever 21 does not have its own design
team, and in litigation has said it is simply purchasing the designs created by its
company has "gotten much better at [its] processes" and is attempting to put
together its own design team, but the specifics of this development have been
Ruth La Ferla. (2007, May 10). Faster Fashion, Cheaper Chic. N.Y. Times.
CURTAILING COPYCAT COUTURE
9
Eric Wilson. (2007, September 4). Before Models Can Turn Around, Knockoffs Fly.
Johanna Blakely. (2010, April). TEDx Talks. Lessons from Fashions Free Cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
Joanna Paul. (n.d). Piracy Paradox is So Last year: Why Design Piracy Prohibition is
Margaret E.Wade. (n.d). The Sartorial Dilemma of Knockoffs: Protecting Moral Rights
James Surowiecki. (2007, September 24). The Piracy Paradox, New Yorker. ("
America to monitor retailers and keep track of original designs .... " ) .
USPTO (U.S. Patent And Trademark Office). (2005). A Guide To Filing a Design
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/pdf/brochure_05.pdf.
Victoria Elman. (2008). From the Runway to the Courtroom: How Substantial Similarity
Is Unfit for Fashion. Under the Copyright Act, the design of a useful article is
or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of
CURTAILING COPYCAT COUTURE
10