Today I read that Jimmy Choo took British highstreet chain Marks & Spencer to court over copyright infringement. They have agreed on a financial settlement.
I first read it on the BBC website. (Personal thanks to Andrew for bringing my attention to this story.) Then I read related posts on The Bag Lady and Catwalk Queen (both of which have photos of the two bags). There is also an extremely good post on Aesthetics + Economics about this issue.
We all know that designer-inspired bags are everywhere. And not only bags…what about shoes, dresses…just about anything really. Budget brands like Matalan and items on ASOS have many bags similar to those in designers’ current collections.
The case with Jimmy Choo and Marks & Spencer is really one in hundreds if not thousands. My take on this is that, as long as a Jimmy Choo lookalike does not “pretend” to actually be from Jimmy Choo (as opposed to counterfeits), I don’t really have a big problem with this.
There are so many other similar cases. The distinctive style of Chloe’s Paddington bag has been seen on ASOS and fredflare. Yet we are not seeing Chloe taking either of them to court.
Also, even though the M&S bag does indeed have the main characteristics of the Jimmy Choo one, The material, the dimensions, the colors of the various parts, and the details of the lining, among many other elements, are probably different. (But I will leave it to the experts to define what constitutes a copyright infringement in this case.)
On the other hand, counterfeit bags are those which do “pretend” to be real designer pieces. Those I do have a problem with. To say the least, they pose a huge threat to the dynamics of economy and the value of artistic creativity.
All in all, I can perfectly understand why Jimmy Choo resorts to legal action on this and I am not saying they shouldn’t do this. But perhaps they should take a more relaxed attitude. Hasn’t highstreet fashion always been a reflection of what style is in demand? And aren’t designer-inspired items, in a way, all add to the cache of designers’ originality?
What’s your view?
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with you – that as long as something is not pretending to be a brand – a ‘fake’ as they say, then there is nothing wrong with the high street imitating high end designers…isn’t this what the high street has always done? Particuraly with handbags (as you mention) sometimes I have to double take to realise that its not a Mulberry, or its not a Chole…
At the end of the day its not like like Marks’ is stealing Jimmy Choo’s customers! Someone spending £800 on a pair of heels probably has the disposable means to do so and probably wouldn’t dream of looking for shoes in Marks’ and vice versa.
Hello RF,
Thank you for sharing your view.
Obviously, this post is from last year. Over the last few months, there have been more cases where well-known high-street stores, including Top Shop, face similar accusations from designer brands.
There are more and more demands from the designing industry for more specific and better-rounded legal definitions of artistic creativity. (I might be wrong, but at the moment, only logos are copyright protected.)
I do think, overall, having more encompassing copyright laws is a healthy direction. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next few years.
Thank you again for commenting!