I feel sick. This is pure plagiarism!

[haute_brands]

Tell me what you think of this website: www.jddefred.com

If this is not plagiarism and intellectual property infringement, I don't know what is

[nancypants]

hey.. it looks kinda like tiffanys!

[Bitten]

Hmmm... it's pretty suggestive.

[haute_brands]

The thing is, this is a local (Singapore) brand name which is involved in multi-level marketing (think Ponzi scheme) so they are not exactly Tiffany. They copied the layout, art direction, font type, photography and right down to the copy writing. It sickens me.

[ecmf]

???? what is this

[Miss Socialite]

A few things looked similar but I think it hardly constitutes plagiarism. I had to go to the Tiffany's website, and really compare to even begin to see the remote similarities.

[haute_brands]

Miss Socialite, I'm not referring to the jeweleries per se, but the presentation of the website.

[mystiach]

Disgraceful. Let's hope that people who may buy will simply see the obvious and decide to go for the real deal.

[xoxlychee]

It's kind of difficult to copyright an "image", I think.

I don't understand why it's so disgusting...I don't believe I'm wrong in saying that not everyone knows of Tiffany; nor can every single shopper afford the Tiffany brand.

Are all secondary fashion lines that garner inspiration from more established brands considered "disgusting"? And we're not even talking about a brand here, just a company image.

[sphinxen]

LOOOOL this very much remind me of when I used to webdesign (websites about horses.. everyone had one! LOL) and if anything looked remotely like someone elses page, people wouldn't be slow to scream out "copycat".

Anyway, I digress.. In my opinion, this is on the borderline. I mean, the webdesigner obviously got the idea from Tiffany's (and it is QUITE obvious) But it's hard to get someone for something like that.. kwim?

All I can say right now is... oh well!

[simplysplendid]

No, this is not plagiarism. The layout and presentation is the similar, but still not Tiffany. They could have paid the same web designer the money to create a website for them and it is up to the web designer and their client to decide on the layout. They could only either put the menu on the top or at the side. They could choose similar fonts. There are too many websites with layouts that are similar to one another. Bulgari and Cartier is quite similar too if we want to nitpick. The important thing to me as a customer is the ease of use of the website. I love VCA, and their website is unique but is a nightmare to browse.

[TylerDurden]

There's nothing illegal about copying a style but if they copy the copy writing then Tiffany's could send them a cease and desist. There is one particular website that I can think of that is even more flagrant about passing themselves off as T&Co, even right down to the products and they've been online for a while now. I guess Tiffany has their hands full trying to stop trademark infringement.

[Nieners]

I think you are overreacting a little bit here.

[onegirlcreative]

Originally Posted by xoxlychee

It's kind of difficult to copyright an "image", I think. I don't understand why it's so disgusting...I don't believe I'm wrong in saying that not everyone knows of Tiffany; nor can every single shopper afford the Tiffany brand. Are all secondary fashion lines that garner inspiration from more established brands considered "disgusting"? And we're not even talking about a brand here, just a company image.

the original photographer can in fact, copyright their image. however, to copyright the design or layout of a website has yet to be an issue, as far as i know. they can design their website however they like, there is no law or rule to this nature. they know this, therefore they are trying to appeal to the luxury masses.

[ahertz]

I really don't see that many similarities? Maybe I'm missing something.