GANNI V STEVE MADDEN: THE RAMIFICATIONS OF DUPING CULTURE

Written By Communications FAME

Written by Zeta Kelly

In March this year, a decision was reached surrounding the copying by Steve Madden of Ganni’s iconic ‘buckle ballet flat’. In the case, the High Court of Eastern Denmark held that the Steve Madden interpretation of the shoe was an infringement of the Ganni design. Steve Madden is well known for their varying ‘versions’ of popular shoe designs. For Ganni to have been successful in this case, it questions the direction the pendulum is swinging in protecting smaller, traditionally slower fashion house designs from ‘fast fashion’ conglomerations. Further, the case between the two has raised questions regarding what extent duping culture may be appropriate, as well as to what extent a design may be considered ‘original’ in the micro-trend era.

 

Trademark and copyright law vary globally, however, Australia and Denmark may be considered to have similar approaches when it comes to the application of this legislation. In Denmark, Intellectual property is regulated by the Danish Patent and Trademark Office under the Consolidated Trade Marks Act (2019). This legislation outlines the breaches and requirements for trademarking, in collaboration with any international conventions that have been signed. Per legislation, fashion related designs such as shoes are covered under copyright protection when established to be original. This does not differ extensively to Australia’s understanding of trademark and copyright law. This is regulated by the Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) and Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), in cooperation with IP Australia. Intellectual property protection is a key aspect to the running of fashion houses globally. It is vital in the preservation of a designer’s creation and how consumers may recognise the brand. Through intellectual property, consumers are able to pick their brand of choice based upon their individual aesthetic and uniqueness. Through brands like Steve Madden acting in a ‘copy-cat’ fashion by replicating the buckle flat design of Ganni, it takes away from their individuality and confuses the consumer regarding what brand they consume. Further, it can dilute the reputation of Ganni, as consumers gather the impression that the shoe is not distinctive but rather a ‘trend’. This highlights the importance for Ganni to have requested an injunction against Steve Madden for the infringement on their registered design. In Australia, decisions like that made in the Danish courts to place an injunction on this design could be influential upon cases of a similar nature and how decisions may be approached. Further, the Ganni v Steve Madden case could impact upon Australia’s permissive behaviour surrounding the theft of design in the fashion industry. Thus, changing the approach to the Australian fashion industry entirely. 

 

The case of Ganni v Steve Madden also raises questions regarding the social acceptance of duping culture in Australia. With the growth of social media platforms like Tiktok over the last 5 years, fashion trends are becoming short-lived and ever changing. This has resulted in ‘micro-trends’ and the purchasing of a ‘dupe’ at a cheaper cost, so as to conform accordingly. Further, it has created an acceptance of large conglomerates ‘duping’ designs made by smaller, slow fashion companies that become popular over social media. In this acceptance, it leads to not only an over-consumption of fashion, but also creates an ignorance of how ethical the production of the item may be or the general construction and fabrication of the piece. Therefore, not only causing environmental issues, but impacting upon the capacity for a smaller company to progress and grow. The general agreeance to duping culture has further led to consumers overlooking the vitality of brand identity, and in a sense ones’ personal identity. Therefore, leading to the ignorance of the potential financial impacts upon the original designer, the environment and other ethical constraints. It could even be considered to remove the conscious decisions that the reasonable, everyday consumer may make upon the selection of brand or item that they consume. This is evident in how the domination of micro-trends globally prevents the everyday consumer from escaping exposure to dupes in their everyday shopping choices. Thus, leading to the near impossible task of maintaining or creating ones’ own identity outside of this world of short-lived trends.

 

Through the success of the injunction against Steve Madden for their ‘dupe’ of Ganni’s ‘buckle ballet flat’, it creates a spark of hope that duping culture and micro-trends may be able to be counteracted by the law. Further, it creates a pathway for other slow fashion houses to protect themselves, and in turn act against the ethical and environmental impacts of duping, to pursue the -copy-cat’ actions of conglomerates.

Communications FAME
Previous

Paik Jong Won Faces the Law (and BTS’s Jin is Involved)
Next

Lawyers as Performers: In Conversation with Kathryn Sutherland, Artistic Director of BottledSnail Productions and Director of Habeas Chorus, Melbourne Lawyers’ Choir