Juicy Gossip Over a Juicy Lawsuit

Here is a direct

article from the AP (Yahoo! news site):

"Juicy Couture Files Trademark Suit Over Packaging"

Tuesday April 29, 5:12 pm ET By David B. Caruso, Associated Press Writer

Juicy Couture files trademark suit against Victoria's Secret over candy-shaped packaging
NEW YORK (AP) -- Clothing company Juicy Couture Inc. has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit accusing rival Victoria's Secret of ripping off one of its marketing gimmicks by selling apparel in packages that look like sugary treats.

The suit, filed late Monday, claims that Victoria's Secret has been imitating its designs and logos for years and incorporating them into its "Pink" line of lounge wear. Lawyers for Juicy laid out a long list of complaints about copying in the suit, saying the Pink line parroted everything from Juicy's coat of arms-style emblem (both include a dog, a crown and a capital letter), to its most common color scheme (pink), to its best-known design (pants with the brand name emblazoned suggestively across the backside).

The trademark infringement claim, however, focuses on how both companies package some of their products. Juicy said it began using candy-themed packaging in 2006, and now sells "Sweet Shoppe" apparel in bundles that look like lollipops, bon bons and ice cream cones. The suit accuses Victoria's Secret, a unit of Limited Brands Inc., of using the same types of packaging starting a year later.

"In copying Juicy Couture's distinctive and unique trade dress, defendants crossed the line from design imitation to trade dress infringement," the lawsuit said.
Both clothing lines are aimed at women in their late teens and early twenties.
A Limited Brands spokeswoman said the company had no comment on the matter.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan just days after Victoria's Secret raised a complaint of its own about knockoffs.

The company sued department store giant Macy's in early April, accusing it of ripping off the Pink brand with imitation clothing marketed under the name "Pinkish." Among other things, Victoria's Secret said that Macy's and clothing manufacturer Intertex Apparel had improperly mimicked its coat of arms (both have a crown and a big letter "P"), as well as its dog logo, and one of its top selling designs: sweat pants with the name "Pinkish" scrawled across the seat.

A spokesman for Macy's declined to comment on the suit.
There is yet another layer to the litigation; Phat Fashions LLC, a company founded by hip-hop legend Russell Simmons, sued Victoria's Secret over the Pink line in March, accusing it of using a logo that too closely resembles its own trademark on Phat Farm clothing. Both emblems feature the letter "P" on a shield, framed by laurel leafs. "

Here are some comparisons:

The top is a tote from Juicy Couture and the bottom are similar totes sold by Victoria's Secret.

Here are some more pictures:

The picture on top is Juicy Couture trackwear and the one on the bottom is Victoria's Secret. It does seem similar, but based on current U.S. trademark law, I don't know if Juicy Couture will win this battle.

Fashion As Art

Individuals in favor of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act have used the idea of creativity as a reason why fashion designs should be included into copyright law in the United States: “Both fashion designers and the public at large consider clothing and accessories to be not only useful articles but also works of creative expression.” Laura C. Marshall, Catwalk Copycats: Why Congress Should Adopt a Modified Version of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 305, 321 (2007). . While these works of creative expression have a utilitarian function, most designers work on their designs from a creative standpoint: “Fashion designers frequently describe themselves and their work in artistic terms; they speak of their vision, their vision, their inspiration, the craftsmanship of their clothing, and the theme or message of a particular collection. Many art museums throughout the country, such as New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art and Guggenheim Museum, maintain temporary or permanent fashion exhibits alongside their fine art collections.” Id. at 323-324.

There is a type of discrimination present among what copyright law deems as worthy of protection. Why is it that other creative industries are afforded protection under the Copyright Act but not the fashion industry? This perception of fashion as art by cultural institutions, the designers themselves and the public should give these designers the same rights as recording artist: “[T]he perception of fashion as art suggests that designers should receive intellectual property rights comparable to those of their peers in other creative industries.” Id. at 323. Unfortunately, this perception does not match the reality of the intellectual property arena of the United States: “Yet, while U.S. copyright law provides protection to visual artwork with non-utilitarian functions, architectural designs, and even boat hulls, the law does not protect clothing designs.” Id. at 324.

Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article that shows that art and fashion do indeed go together: "Andy Warhol may have been one of the first to recognize that a little bit of art and a little bit of commerce go a long way, but a new exhibition of Takashi Murakami's work at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles takes Warhol's modus operandi to a new level. Aside from showcasing a complete retrospective of Murakami's anime-inspired graphic art, the exhibition will include items from his past collaborations with Louis Vuitton -- and a 1,000-square-foot Vuitton mini-boutique on the museum's mezzanine floor. "

This is the link to the full article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07EED81E31F934A35753C1A9619C8B63&scp=2&sq=murakami%2C+art&st=nyt

While the clothing design itself is not granted copyright protection, the sketch of a fashion design is. This indicates that there is a lack of developed American jurisprudence to handle the sophisticated requirements of art in fashion and reconcile them with the utilitarian functionality of fashion: “Under current copyright law, a two-dimensional sketch of a fashion design garners copyright protection as a pictorial work. However, artists lose all copyright protection as soon as they render the sketches into three dimensional garments because clothing is not normally considered to have separable elements.” Megan Williams, Fashioning a New Idea: How the Design Piracy Prohibition Act Is a Reasonable Solution to the Fashion Design Problem, 10 Tul. J. Tech & Intell. Prop. 303.

This approach to copyright protection seems to be ill fitted with the Supreme courts ruling on mass produced, industrially designed products: “Mazer v. Stein granted copyright protection to a lamp because the sculptured lamp base was found to be a ‘work of art’ separable from the objects primary use as a lighting fixture. For the first time, the Court granted copyright protection to an industrially designed, mass produced product.” Id. at 309-310. However, in spite of this ruling by the Supreme Court, American jurisprudence refuses to extend this to dress designs. This is because a design’s artistic elements can not be separated from the utilitarian use of the garment. Id.

Yet, look at some art inspired fashion:

This is the work Murakami (who is a well known artist inspired by popular culture) did for Louis Vuitton for its handbags.

This is a piece called "For Miuccia Prada" by John Baldessari. He is part of a program that is patronized by Prada that combines art with Prada's spaces.

In the House Committee hearing for the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, it was contended that this refusal to incorporate fashion design into copyright law actually goes against the natural intention of copyright law: “A law professor at the same subcommittee meeting stated that it ‘is the constitutional intent of copyright law to promote and protect the development of creative industries by ensuring that creators are the ones who receive the benefit of their own intellectual investments.’ Allowing fashion designs to be protected by copyright does not violate the theoretical basis for copyright protection.” Id. at 312.

Based on some of the images here, it would be a safe contention to say that there is that requisite spark of creativity in the development of fashion designs. However, based on the transient world of fashion seasons, it will be tricky to fit fashion IP into the world of copyrights.

Let Them Have Purses

There are those who are opposed to attempting to protect the intellectual property rights of fashion of designers. They argue that affording designers these rights is akin to trying to kill the fashion industry. They argue that passing such a bill like the Design Piracy Prohibition Act will only serve to protect elite designers and keep prices on couture designs unreasonably high for the average consumer: “However, some scholars hope that the United States will resist the international pressure, arguing that the framework of free copying in this country actually benefits the fashion industry as whole more than the stricter laws of Europe.” Laura C. Marshall, Catwalk Copycats: Why Congress Should Adopt a Modified Version of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 305, 309 (2007).

Those opposed to stricter intellectual property protection for fashion design argue that piracy actually induces more creativity and economic growth. They argue that the fashion industry tends to remain stable in a ‘low IP equilibrium’ Id. at 320. Since piracy involves diffusing the designs of elite couture houses to a larger audience that normally would not have access to these designs, it makes the exclusivity factor of the designs obsolete to the elite clientele of the creators of the designs.

There is a seesaw of induced obsolescence and trend anchoring: “Induced obsolescence is the phenomenon by which trends become distasteful to their initial, wealthy, customers as knockoffs of these trends ‘diffuse to a broader clientele’ at cheaper prices.” Id. The designers are put into a situation where they must constantly be creative in order to keep up with this clientele: “Widespread copying drives the elite fashion houses to create more new designs as the trend-of-the-moment becomes defunct.” Id. Proponents in favor of preventing designers from intellectual property rights for their designs claim that this constant need for new designs will help spur creativity and also aid them in more sales of their designs.

Trend anchoring is a concept that is intrinsically tied to copying and piracy in the fashion industry: “Raustiala and Sprigman argue that this phenomenon of trend anchoring, brought by ‘free appropriation’ among designers, is a key element of the fashion economy. Design houses tolerate copying, knowing that they may be the ones borrowing the idea the following season.” Id. at 321. Trends help consumers identify the items that they must have for the season in order to be fashionable. It helps bridge the gap between needs and desires.

Trends also benefit the designers since they induce the consumer to believe that their designs are a necessity: “Anchoring allows consumers to identify discernible trends of each season; a firmly established trend then becomes the “must have” item of the season, and fashion designers throughout the industry benefit from this trend driven consumerism.

One of this year's must have items: Tory Burch's Reva Flat

While these arguments are certainly plausible and justifiable, they also recognize one important factor: that the designs created by fashion designers are creative works. While the creative works that they create are useful, there is a requisite “spark of creativity”. Feist Publ’n Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

Notice how the Tory Burch flat has a "spark of creativity", but how it also borrows from other designer signatures. For example, the basketweave leather work is indicative of Bottega Veneta. If we grant Ms. Tory Burch property rights for this design, can Bottega Veneta claim infringement for this use of basketweave leather?

Where do we draw the line between designs that are in the public domain and designs that are protected?

Trademarks and the City

Sorry I haven't posted for a while. I was busy living the fabulous life of a rockstar. By rockstar, I mean law student who has papers, presentations, and other work related responsibilities. But I was able to get some intellectual property networking in New York City done. As a third year law student trying to forge a career in Intellectual Property, it is essential to network. Here is my jam packed day.

I met with my uber cool mentor Ms. Carol Matorin from Limited Brands, Inc. to follow up with an event I did for the law school. I was also lucky enough to meet with Ms. Janet Linn who is a partner over at Morgan Lewis & Bockius. She was so helpful and gave very sharp advice for anyone who is looking to break into intellectual property. One key piece of advice is to make multiple resumes targeted for different types of employers! I met both of these wonderful ladies by doing research on women who do IP in New York. It pays to do your homework and reach out! People are a lot nicer than you think.

I also made a pit stop in Chinatown to see how rampant the counterfeits are right now. It was definitely in full swing. The hottest counterfeits right now are fine jewelry and watches. There were faux Cartiers all over the place! Another hot item to counterfeit has been the enameled jewelry that is done by Louis Vuitton. Here is how the original looks:

I managed to visit my lovely friend Regine Lahens who works over at Marc Jacobs in SoHo. She is definitely a girl that is going places! She and I used to work at Detny Footwear together. She told me that Shane and Shawn Ward (who are the masterminds behind Detny and Shane & Shawn Shoes) opened a cute store in SoHo which was down the street at 238 Mulberry Street so we went to visit them.

Shawn and Shane are just getting better and better in their shoe designs. They made a very chic flat that will have Tory Burch green with envy. It is a satin flat with the words "rock" and "roll" in metal rivets on the front of the shoe. How rockstar is that? Check out both of their lines here:

http://www.detny.com/

I flew out to New York City on Tuesday night to attend the International Trademark Association's Panel Discussion on how to break into a career of Intellectual Property. It was an interesting mix of perspectives with the panelists:

David H. Bernstein, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Rebecca Borden, Vice President, Associate General Counsel, CBS Corporation
Kathryn Starnella, Associate, Goodwin Procter
Tiffany Trunko, Assistant General Counsel - Trademarks, Pfizer Inc

Each of the panelists discussed their career paths and offered some great advice about what they wished they knew coming out of law school. Ms. Rebecca Borden also did a fantastic Powerpoint presentation on what it is she does on a daily basis.

She gave us an example case that she worked on for the CBS hit show Survivor. Ms. Borden important advice about trademarks and fair use. She recommended that the show used a trademark that was distinctive since the word "survivor" is a generic term. Here is how the logo looks:

As you can tell the terms "outwit, outlast, and outplay" are on there. The internal part of the logo is constantly changing to suit the next location of Survivor but the overall look is the same. Ms. Borden's job is to make sure that this logo was not used by anyone else and can be plastered on promotional items such as beachballs, hats, key rings and sunscreen. There were two interesting cases that involved this logo. One was with the Surfvivor Sunscreen being confused with Survivor promotional sunscreen and the other was with the band Survivor. Thanks to Ms. Borden's vigilance about distinctive markers and those extra terms, the logo for CBS remains intact and ready for business.

Ms. Tiffany Trunko gave some key words of advice on how it is wise to gather a team of mentors in order to rally you for your job search. Think of it as your team. Your motto should be "Go Team (insert your name here)! She gave the advice of how clients never want to be surprised and recommended that lawyers to speak in sound bytes in order to be more memorable.

Ms. Karina Dimidjian-Lecompte from Casalonga Avocats was gracious enough to fly out from Paris in order to serve as a moderator for this wonderful panel. The cocktail reception was just delicious! Here is the INTA website if you want to find out more about this organization:

http://www.inta.org/

Student memberships are available. And there is a job bank with cool job postings from places like Abercrombie & Fitch and Nintendo! Good luck with job searching and networking.

The Empire Strikes Back Against Counterfeits

The CFDA, along with other interest groups has been trying to get the Design Piracy Prohibition Act passed in Congress in order to protect the rights of designers:

"August 8, 2007 – On Thursday, August 2 in Washington, D.C. Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Design Piracy Prohibition Act (S1957: The Schumer-Hutchison-Feinstein Bill) in the United States Senate. This bill protects original fashion designs for a period of three years from their registration with the U.S. Copyright Office." -CFDA website


http://www.cfda.com/index.php?option=com_cfda_content&task=news_display_all


This bill was introduced as preventive measure to protect emerging designers from having their creative work poached by counterfeiters as well protecting the right of consumers to better quality goods that are made under fair labor conditions. The ultimate goals of this proposed legislation are to protect designers and to protect intellectual property.


The Copyright Act is currently under review to include protection for fashion designs with this introduction of this bill: “The Design Piracy Prohibition Act, H.R. 5055, introduced by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) last year, seeks to amend the Copyright Act to include protection for fashion designs for three years from the time that the designer registers the design and establishes for infringement of a fashion design at the greater of $250,000 or $5 per copy.” Hope Calder-Katz, How Does Design Piracy Prohibition Act Could Deter Copying of High Fashion, 21-MAY CBA Rec. 44, 45 (2007). If the Copyright Act is amended, it will be for a much shorter period of time as given to other creative works because the fashion industry works within specific seasons that are transient. Id. Under the Copyright Act, protection for the creator lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years after the creator’s death. Id.


Some individuals against the bill claim that this is too much protection. However if you consider the anti-piracy measures in countries such as the U.K. and France, United States legislation to protect the creativity of designers is lagging behind. Many prominent individuals of the fashion industry have commented on the lack of protection afforded to designers in U.S. law: “Patrick Thomas, President & CEO of Hermes, agreed, saying that ‘[i]t is a very strange statement to see that in the U.S. the trademark is protected, but the model, the shape or the design itself can not be protected…Our creative activity in fashion and accessories [is] of the same nature as the professional efforts put into developing movies, music or medicines.’ Id. at 46


The proposed legislation is not even agreed upon by interest groups. There is the CFDA which supports the bill, while the American Apparel and Footwear Association is a little more hesitant in its support of the bill. It would like to protect the interests of its larger members who sometimes are "inspired" by the creative designs of smaller designers who may not have the financial abilities to market their designs on a larger scale. So the AAFA is pushing for a revision to the Act.



However, there are opposing parties who argue that passing such a bill like the Design Piracy Prohibition Act will only serve to protect elite designers and keep prices on couture designs unreasonably high for the average consumer: “However, some scholars hope that the United States will resist the international pressure, arguing that the framework of free copying in this country actually benefits the fashion industry as whole more than the stricter laws of Europe.” Laura C. Marshall, Catwalk Copycats: Why Congress Should Adopt a Modified Version of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 305, 309 (2007).



Those opposed to stricter intellectual property protection for fashion design argue that piracy actually induces more creativity and economic growth. They argue that the fashion industry tends to remain stable in a ‘low IP equilibrium’ Id. at 320. Since piracy involves diffusing the designs of elite couture houses to a larger audience that normally would not have access to these designs, it makes the exclusivity factor of the designs obsolete to the elite clientele of the creators of the designs.



Here is a good example of diffusion: The dress on the left is from Versace and retails for $1,685 while the dress on the right is from Bebe and retails for $130.


The interesting thing to note is that most individuals who are likely to purchase the original from Versace would not be easily swayed into purchasing the cheaper Bebe version. There is an argument that the Bebe version appeals to another type of consumer who would never buy the original, yet would purchase an item that has been inspired by a designer. This forces designers to constantly be creative because once the design is commonly found in malls across America, the original purchaser of that Versace dress will no longer want it. They will crave something unique and different. It is not that piracy really eats away at potential revenue losses, but its a creativity drain. It forces designers to have to churn out designs at a faster rate. Where is the harm? Is there are a harm to consumers? Or is this a case of just designers suffering from creative burnout?

Is the whole idea of knock offs really harmful to business? Isn't this what capitalism and fair competition are about? Are the European countries that have adopted stricter measure against design piracy really correct in doing so?

Where Is the Harm in Counterfeit Fashion?

*This photo is courtesy of www. kimberlymahle.com* "Africans selling knockoff purses in Venice, Italy."

We see these purveyors of counterfeit goods all of the time. Whether its the lady in the parking lot hawking goods for a "purse party", or a man on Canal Street in New York City convincing you to buy a Kate Spade bag from a black plastic garbage bag, counterfeit fashion goods are everywhere.

They are even on the internet. Try googling knockoff purses and you will find countless website offering you "replicas" of designer handbags.

"With the increasing interest in high fashion and recent developments in technology, counterfeit and knockoff artists have reached their peak. Not only are fraudsters able to sell items they recreate on the Web with little overhead or cost, but within minutes of the conclusion of a runway show exact reproductions of the garments are in the process of being mass produced. Often the replicated designs are obtainable before the original designer has even made his garments available for sale, causing many in the industry to cry out for protection." Lynsey Blackmon, The Devil Wears Prado: A Look At The Design Piracy Prohibition Act And The Extension of Copyright Protection To The World of Fashion, 35 PEPLR 107, 111-112 (2007).

The use of the internet in order to make a quick turnaround of counterfeit goods has turned this seemingly innocuous business into one that harms creativity. It takes designers a long time to create their designs. It takes only seconds to take that design and reverse engineer it for copycats: "Although these tactics were common practice at one time, improvements in technology mean knockoff artists no longer need to wait for the design to become available before making it their own. With one digital picture the lag time is decreased to near nothing, and computerized pattern-making and order-taking make the process a cinch." Id. at 119.

It is this use of technology that makes it harder for copycats to claim that they are "inspired" by designs introduced on a fashion runway. They are basically copying the design stitch for stitch.

This is a dress designed by Vera Wang for Keira Knightley for the Oscars. Within days, ABS Allen Schwartz was able to upload photos of the dress, have a computer reverse stitch, and create replicas of Vera Wang's design.

This dress was offered before Vera Wang had the ability to create one for her pret-a-porter line. But this is not Allen Schwartz's concern. He claims that his business is to offer what the consumer wants: "In the words of designer Allen Schwartz: 'If [you] can put a well-made, great-looking suspender pant in a store for $190 and it's sitting 20 feet away from a similar suspender pant by Donna Karan that retails for $450, which do you think the average consumer is going to want?' Consumers are proving Mr. Schwartz right. Without more safeguards than those currently afforded actual garment designs, knockoffs will continue to permeate the market allowing knockoff manufacturers to profit from the investment of the original designer." Id.

However, it is not just the designer being harmed by knockoffs.

Consumers are harmed too. Consumers may spend more on a knockoff bag by Anya Hindmarch than on the original just because of the "snob factor" of the limited numbers of the originals. For example, Anya Hindmarch created an "I'm Not a Plastic Bag" canvas bag that was sold in limited numbers in select Whole Foods Markets. There are currently dozens of counterfeit versions of this bag being sold in New York City's Chinatown for more than double the original price at $15! In fact, I asked a vendor how much his counterfeit bag costs an average consumer and he told me the bag costs $35! Consumers who buy this more expensive counterfeit will also be faced with quality control issues. Where can the consumer complain? I looked at the bag being offered and noticed poor quality stitching, poor quality canvas, and crooked lettering.

Another issue are the work conditions for the workers making these counterfeit products. Typically, the conditions for making these goods are very poor. Operations need to be mobile because of the fear of police raids. The workers are typically illegal immigrants and can sometimes include children as young as fours years old:

"Keeping pace with counterfeiters can be exceptionally difficult, Lipkus said, noting that they work quickly, collapsing their operations within hours of being discovered.
In one recent raid in Markham, Ont., an investigator found a team of workers sewing brand-name labels onto knock-off clothes.
Lipkus said while the investigator was contacting police, one of the counterfeiters pulled a van up to the plant to take the goods away.
"The landlord was contacted on the facility and when they opened up the doors there was not a stitch of anything in [there]," he said. "They had moved everything, lock, stock and barrel within two hours."
While officials were not able to determine the working conditions or wages of the workers at the Markham plant, Lipkus said counterfeiting factories in Asia are typically shocking. " -http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/consumers/counterfeit.html

Will consumers scale back consumption if they realize how harmful counterfeits are?

Why Counterfeits?: The Real Fashion Opium for the Masses?

The prevalence of counterfeits are everywhere. Even celebrities like Anna Kournikova (who can easily afford the real thing) have taken liberties with carrying around fake handbags. It has become fashionable to buy fakes and admit that they are fakes. Even celebutantes like Paris Hilton wears fake Louis Vuitton hair clips with her real Louis Vuitton bags.

Ms. Hilton also stirred up some controversy when she appeared at Bondi Beach wearing a Louis Vuitton bikini that some bloggers thought was a fake.

Ms. Britney Spears was hit with an injunction with Louis Vuitton for using a fake version of its Murakami cherry blossom design in the interior of a car used for her music video: "The luxury clothes and accessories brand won an injunction in Paris yesterday to stop the 2005 video - which shows mother-of-three Britney driving a pink car emblazoned with the company's prestigious 'cherry blossom LV' symbol - from being shown.
SonyBMG and MTV Online were ordered to pay $117,600 each for "damaging" the brand's image, and are expected to pay $1470 for every day the video remains on the internet.
Louis Vuitton has continuously worked to prevent its goods from being copied, and has fought the ongoing battle in French and other courts."

Since celebrities are influencers of the public on a mass level, these celebrities are making it more acceptable to wear knockoffs. And there are some advocates that support the use of knockoffs within the field of law: “However, some scholars hope that the United States will resist the international pressure, arguing that the framework of free copying in this country actually benefits the fashion industry as whole more than the stricter laws of Europe.” Laura C. Marshall, Catwalk Copycats: Why Congress Should Adopt a Modified Version of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, 14 J. Intell. Prop. L. 305, 309 (2007). Those opposed to stricter intellectual property protection for fashion design argue that piracy actually induces more creativity and economic growth. They argue that the fashion industry tends to remain stable in a ‘low IP equilibrium’ Id. at 320. Since piracy involves diffusing the designs of elite couture houses to a larger audience that normally would not have access to these designs, it makes the exclusivity factor of the designs obsolete to the elite clientele of the creators of the designs.

These scholars are basically saying that by the time that fashion items become popular enough to be counterfeited, then the design house is compelled to create another new "cult" item. This does seem to be working. There is a New York Times article you can read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/fashion/27BOTTEGA.html?_r=1&ref=fashion&oref=slogin The whole premise is that only a certain group of people would buy the real bag. This group spurns a bag once it had hit the mainstream which forces the design houses to create more innovative items. One way for the fashion elite to know that a bag design has run its course is to look toward public consumption of counterfeit bags and knockoffs.

It details the rise of Bottega Veneta which is known as being logo free. This design house is reacting to the mass counterfeit production of the monogram look that was started with the Louis Vuitton handbags and has been done by every other company such as Coach and Dooney&Burke. The article details how the bags are identifiable not by logo, but by craftsmanship and are "recession proof".

It is a design house known for its basketweave leatherwork. Unfortunately, it seems that this article on Bottega Veneta also served as an inspiration for counterfeits too:

Here is an authentic Bottega Veneta.

Here is a fake Bottega Veneta with a knockoff replica right next to it:

Can you tell which one is the fake? If you guessed that the one on top is a fake and the one on the bottom is the real Bottega Veneta then you can't be fooled. The one on top is sold for $48.00 at Urban Outfitters while the real deal is sold for $1,680.

The price disparity is immense. This is typically the reason that people feel justified in buying pirated goods. However is price a justification for design theft? Or does it seem like all of these goods are just useful designs that promote fair competition?

Here are some useful term differences to know:

Counterfeit: an imitation made with the intent to deceptively represent its content or origins.

Knockoff: an unauthorized copy or imitation

It is far worse to have a counterfeit item than a knockoff. A counterfeit would be the purse carried by Anna Kournikova since the LV rainbow monogram is clearly on the bag. The maker of its bag intended to deceive the public into believing that it is originally from LVMH. The green purse to the left is a knockoff that is "inspired" by Bottega Veneta.

What is the harm in counterfeits? Is that green purse sold by Urban Outfitters really hurting anyone?