Ted Baker copies not a good look
NATIONAL: A spate of cases brought against local labels by UK brand Ted Baker has sparked claims Australia is increasingly seen as a haven for knock-offs.
Just last week the UK-based global designer label revealed it had stung four Australian fashion houses with out of court settlements relating to copyright infringement over the past 18 months. Jag, a division of the Colorado Group, paid Ted Baker $305,000 in settlement of a claim relating to "a substantial number of shirts"; Target paid $98,000 relating to 3,188 dresses; Witchery paid $35,000 relating to 3,565 tops; and Barry Bowden Investments, trading as Very Very, paid $15,000 relating to 522 dresses. All four companies declined Ragtrader's requests for comment.
Speaking to Ragtrader from Ted Baker's London office, the company's brand communication director Craig Smith said copyright infringement was "very commonplace" within Australasia. "Firstly, the fact the industry is a season behind Europe allows these copycats the time to visit Europe, pick out winning designs from the then current season, go home, put them into work and still get to market before the host brand."
Due to Australia's relatively small market, courts here were "less in tune with protecting the rights of designers" than in Europe, he said. Furthermore Australian copyright law only provided protection for designs featuring graphics or prints, while protection for the overall appearance of garments required registration with government agency IP Australia.
"An application for registration must be made before the design is published and thus most overseas designers would have lost their rights before they bring clothing featuring their design to Australia."
Registration was also prohibitively expensive if every design had to be registered in case one might be copied, he said.
Chris Jordan, a partner at the Melbourne branch of legal firm and IP specialist Davies Collison Cave, represented Ted Baker in the matters against Jag and Very Very. While declining to comment on the specifics of the two cases, Jordan said IP protection in Australia could be improved in two ways.
"The first would be to introduce a system similar to that in Europe - and which is being discussed in the US - known as an 'unregistered design right'. This provides for limited protection for clothing, lasting around three years. No registration is required and it's effective immediately the clothing hits the market." Secondly, a grace period would allow designers to register successful designs already in the market, he said.
Tony Watson, a partner at Melbourne law firm Middletons, agreed both measures should be adopted in Australia, adding that copying of successful designs was increasingly common, largely because it allowed companies to cut design costs.
"For many copyists the payment of legal costs and damages as a result of infringing someone's intellectual property rights is merely a cost of doing business."
Commentators said international copyright infringement was increasingly rife, due to the rise of the internet and global trade. Earlier this month a US court ruled that online auctioneer Ebay could not be held accountable for the sale of copies of jewellery brand Tiffany's, despite an earlier case that saw Ebay ordered to pay luxury goods group LVMH $A60 million in damages for the sale of counterfeit product.
Disputes between local companies were not uncommon. In February Melbourne company The Discovery Group was fined around $18,000 for design infringement of a dress registered by local label Review. With Ted Baker having achieved quasi-local status following the opening of its first Australian outlet in Melbourne last August, the brand planned to heighten its policing, said Craig Smith.
"Ted Baker spends hundreds of thousands of UK pounds annually on this activity and subsequent actions. [...] Design integrity is paramount for a brand that doesn't advertise in order to remain unique and special for paying customers."
By Belinda Smart