Post # 1
I wore these today. They’re Jeffrey Campbell Prickly
And here is an Aussie store Zu with exactly same shoe without the name:
And the obnoxious me is thinking, most people must be like thinking “oh I saw these on sale at Zu!” – lol, when they’re actually Jeffrey Campbell. i know it aint no thang, but it’s just one of those things..
What’s the point in buying your fave brand name when theres an exact copy out there thats cheaper? I find that Aussie Stores has a terrible tendency to do this (im looking at you Zu, Betts, Tony Bianco!!) Surely there has to be a law out there saying you cant rip off someone elses idea??
Post # 3
@princessggg: The chances are both purchase from the same supplier and brand them.
Post # 4
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
@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
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 # 7
Yeah I know it’s been happening for ages.. but last time I read about it was on Vogue Forums and said that theres a law in the US that prevents things like this happening but it hadnt hit Australia yet. I dont know but yeh, whatevs, just sucks is all (=
Post # 8
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
It’s actually possible to walk in those shoes? Yikes!
Post # 10
@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 # 11
@goingtotherooftopoflove: I am with you! They look scary to walk in.
Post # 12
@j_jaye: thanks for the info.. man makes my post really a waste of time then lol!!! well, good to know (=
Post # 13
@goingtotherooftopoflove: they’re actually really comfortable – i prefer these to steep stilletoes in terms of comfort. Actually ALL JC shoes are very comfortable. (=
Post # 14
@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
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
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