Adventures in Copyright: The Morning After

Jan 25, 2008 @ 9:01am

Last week, we busted Target for blatantly mimicking one of Diane von Furstenberg's best known patterns (and on a wrap dress, for shame.)

Now, Business Week reports that Diane von Furstenberg herself is suing Target for the copyright infringement, charging that Target's copies "nearly identically copy the scale, pattern and colorways of DVF's Spotted Frog Design," and that the shape of the copies are purposefully " 'wrap' dresses made of materials designed to look like silk jersey, a style consumers and the general public have come to associate with DVF."

We guess Target's designers don't have any friends at Forever 21. At least they could have given them the warning:

The inimitable DVF does not mess around.

posted by guest

Jan 25, 2008 9:18AM

I think they're not that similar...what forever 21 was doing was far more blatant ripping off. But whatever dvf has good lawyers so more power to her.

posted by guest

Jan 25, 2008 9:49AM

Note that Target has now pulled their dress from stores and their website.

posted by catsnphilosophy

Jan 25, 2008 9:59AM

I agree with guest 9:18. People are freaking sue-happy. Imitation is the best form of flattery. I love how another blog I read shows the high-end item, then often shows the lower-end similar item so that you can choose how to spend your money. Rich people suing others is just stupid. And more specifically to this instance, the designs were not similar enough to be lawsuit fodder. Hopefully a judge will throw this thing out of court.

posted by syako

Jan 25, 2008 10:13AM

Good for her.

posted by Lauren

Jan 25, 2008 10:22AM

You guys rock for spotting this -- it seems like someone from the von Furstenberg camp was reading Fashionista and subsequently took action.

However, am I the only one who thinks this dress is ugly? I wouldn't pay $25 for it, let alone $250

posted by guest

Jan 25, 2008 10:38AM

I can't believe people here still don't see this as an adventures in copyright...they seriously need a lesson in fashion. The dresses were not identical, but that is only because the Target one ripped off the exact print and then used it on the most ubiquitous DVF dress of all: the wrap. The style and print of the Target version were not stolen from the same DVF dress, but they were both stolen from DVF designs! Jeez.

posted by xxi

Jan 25, 2008 10:48AM

Honestly I love DVF but give me a break. Enough is enough. Aren't there much more important things to sue/worry over? Shouldn't she sue everyone ever then over stolen designs? Including Express, Lane Bryant, Wal*Mart, and herself for using Cavalli's signature print. And then Cavalli should sue D&G for using his print as well. Because he clearly invented it [that was sarcasm before anyone jumps down my throat] Then everyone should turn around and sue Pat Field and Betsey Johnson and Anna Sui. Then Chanel should sue Marc Jacobs. It's endless, pointless, and fruitless. A simple cease and desist letter is more than enough. It's not like Target was making million off the dress.

posted by Cynthia C

Jan 25, 2008 11:06AM

Diane is very sue-happy. But you know what? Most of her things give me a headache.

posted by kenya

Jan 25, 2008 11:32AM

who is the rich person in this instance and what is fair? target is a $44 bill company with almost $60 billion in sales. when a country like china wants to infringe upon an american copyright we argue that it is not fair and something should be done. when one of our own companies does it, people are much more forgiving. either way it is wrong. whether the print was close enough is for the courts to decide but at least give fashionista some due praise for being dilligent in detecting an alarming global trend, the blatant stealing of some of our country's best ideas. hopefully this situation gets resolved outside the courts in a civil manner.

posted by guest

Jan 25, 2008 12:33PM

Catsnphilosophy, which blog are you talking about?

posted by guest

Jan 25, 2008 1:03PM

how can anyone honestly say they're not similar? they're exactly the same print! and how dare anyone call dvf sue happy? she's an artist who's worked hard to develop a brand and a signature that's internationally recognized as her individual work - she has every right to claim that as her own. any self-respecting, hard-working artist, designer, musician etc. would do the same.

posted by guest

Jan 25, 2008 1:24PM

Target is selling what looks like a DVF dress, but in a much precise cut, poorer finish and cheaper fabric. If you were a designer, would you want people to think that YOU made that peace of crap? Diane has the right to protect her reputation, not just her copyright. It's not just a case of imitation, it's a case of rip-off.

posted by guest

Jan 25, 2008 2:31PM

DVF, you missed this one --> http://www.shopdiary.com/2008/01/25/diane-von-furstenberg-sues-target-but-she-missed-this-one/

posted by Edina

Jan 25, 2008 2:49PM

How can you claim ownership on leopard print, unless of course, you're a leopard? The dress is ugly anyway. Who cares?

posted by xxi

Jan 25, 2008 4:30PM

A rip off is not grounds to sue. Furthermore I wanted to add that DVF should be worried about how places make the clothing or instituting better factories/labor laws. Since she is the president of the CFDA instead of running around suing everyone to protect her "copyright." when ALL she has to do is send a letter for them to take it down. Suing them won't make the dresses be returned, only void them out of existence. Which can be done [and save everyone a lot of money] with a simple letter. She's just taking it too far. As a photographer I get wanting to protect your copyright and I'm taking a class about this right now.

My law professor agrees that it's just too intense and POINTLESS of her to sue She can sue anyone she wants to sue, it'll cost her and the other company lots of money in the end and accomplish nothing because someone else is going to knock her off. When all she wants is them to not use her design. Thus sending a cease and desist letter is the best way to settle these sort of things. If they didn't take it down, then I'd be for a lawsuit, but they did. So really she is sue happy.

posted by syako

Jan 25, 2008 5:22PM

xxi - If DVF wins this lawsuit it will set a precedent that she fights and wins. So when the next company considers ripping her off blatantly, they might reconsider for fear of litigation. Also, it's a bit naive to actually a think a letter would work...

posted by guest

Jan 27, 2008 2:13PM

the wrap dress is definitely DvF thing, but everyone knows she is the creator of it, but it is kind of a universal style now. but, as it was a direct copy of her dress, then I guess its right for her to sue. Also, loving adventures in copyright. probably my favourite section on fashionista. PS living in the UK,I dont know much about forever 21, but they seriously seem to take the piss with their rip-offs!

posted by lea

Jan 27, 2008 4:19PM

She can't be serious?! I'm sorry but it's a bit retarded that someone can "claim" copyright for such style and print. It's like getting a patent for silk bedsheet! It's a universal style, I'm sure it's been done by hundreds of different shops/designer before. Hmmm wait, we got a deep pocket here...Target seems to be an easy TARGET?!

posted by guest

Jan 29, 2008 12:28PM

agreed!

posted by guest

Mar 07, 2008 3:10PM

Legal wakeup call: Diane von Furstenburg is suing Target under TRADEMARK law, not copyright law. There is a legal difference. The language stated in her complaint is trademark language, not copyright language. She is alleging that the Target copy is infringing on her trademark by diluting her brand and creating confusion.

Also, copyright protection does not extend to clothing patterns, only, in select cases, to graphic design on textiles, and even then it is a "thin" copyright.