ARGH! How do Aussie shops get away with copying expensive brands?!

posted 4 years ago in Australia
Post # 3
Member
964 posts
Busy bee

@princessggg:  The chances are both purchase from the same supplier and brand them.

Post # 4
Member
14857 posts
Honey Beekeeper
  • Wedding: June 2011

It happens everywhere. I saw a nine west purse that was almost identical to the Michael Kors bag I own. Eh, I don’t worry about it, it’s how the fashion business rolls. 

Post # 5
Member
28 posts
Newbee
  • Wedding: April 2013

@princessggg:  Zu is actually owned by Betts, which explains all the similar styling.

This doesn’t just happen in Australia, it happens everywhere- and with every product imaginable. Even Kmart, Target & Witners are selling shoes that look exactly like that.

Post # 6
Member
3890 posts
Honey bee
  • Wedding: June 2010

Not something to get too bothered about. The original as far as my search went can be bought for a similar cost point anyway. (As in I saw them on sale for under $150).

Everything that is considered desirable by someone will be duplicated 🙂

Post # 8
Member
7941 posts
Bumble Beekeeper

It is actually not illegal under Australian copyright law. The act states that

“Copyright does not protect ideas, information, styles or techniques”

So this style of shoe can be copied by anyone.

It only becomes illegal if a company copies the shoe and places a counterfiet label (so Jeffery Campbell in this case) on them and sells them as such. This is not protected by copyright but by counterfiet laws.

Post # 9
Member
2202 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: March 2014

It’s actually possible to walk in those shoes?  Yikes!

Post # 10
Member
7941 posts
Bumble Beekeeper

@princessggg:  There are no laws in the USA that prevent things like this happening. Their copyright laws are pretty much the same as ours. They only tend to prosecute people on the grounds of counterfiets.

You can patent a shoe design but it is difficult and has to be deemed artistic in nature or a brand new type of shoe (such as a new revolutionary orthopeadic shoe etc).

 

Post # 14
Member
7941 posts
Bumble Beekeeper

@princessggg:  Well at least it confirms that it happens everywhere and there is nothing anyone can do about it!

I remember when a USA company tried to trademark the term “ugg” and it got rejected due to the fact that in Australia ugg refers to a type of shoe rather than a brand of shoe. I’m glad the laws are not ridiculously strict because imagine not being able to call your uggs uggs without the fear of being sued by some multinational.

Post # 15
Member
11242 posts
Sugar Beekeeper
  • Wedding: August 2013

And actually, if we’re getting technical, the shoes aren’t the same–the buckle is different. Same reason there are so many wedding gowns look the same, but aren’t. 

Post # 16
Member
9529 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: May 2018

There aren’t laws in place, the shoes aren’t exactly the same, and it happens everywhere. If you get a picture of a dress or a ring you like, you can take it somewhere like Jasmine’s or a jeweller and get it copied. Same thing as the shoes, no laws are broken.

ETA: the curve is also shorter and deeper in the first shoe, and the first shoe is also much darker

Leave a comment


Get our weekly roundup of the best of Weddingbee.
I agree to receive emails from the site. I can withdraw my consent at any time by unsubscribing.

Find Amazing Vendors