When is the line crossed between copying and REALLY copying...

[Passerine123]

I happened to click on an ad for a company called EZPopsy and out of curiosity, looked at the bag selection. Whoa! A lot of designer bag imitations. I mean really obvious imitations.
https://www.ezpopsy.com/bags-42/
I guess if you're going to copy, might as well copy the best (and they love Chloe!)...but what made me raise my eyebrows were these claims on the "About us" section of their website:
Ezpopsy are committed to providing customers with original, high qualitied (sic), and exclusive fashionable clothing at reasonable prices.
We provide designed products by our design team.
(FWIW, the company is based in Hong Kong)
Are companies like this crossing the line? Does anybody care?

 

[Fimpagebag]

I happened to click on an ad for a company called EZPopsy and out of curiosity, looked at the bag selection. Whoa! A lot of designer bag imitations. I mean really obvious imitations.
https://www.ezpopsy.com/bags-42/
I guess if you're going to copy, might as well copy the best (and they love Chloe!)...but what made me raise my eyebrows were these claims on the "About us" section of their website:
Ezpopsy are committed to providing customers with original, high qualitied (sic), and exclusive fashionable clothing at reasonable prices.
We provide designed products by our design team.
(FWIW, the company is based in Hong Kong)
Are companies like this crossing the line? Does anybody care?

A quick glance at their bags tells me that their offerings are derivative. "Designer Inspired" bags that while they lack imagination are (strictly speaking) not counterfeit. Their LV wannabe would never be mistaken for a genuine LV.

 

[paculina]

^^^ I agree. There's a difference between "here's that same look at a more affordable price", which is what this is, and holding something out to be something it isn't. If they were claiming to be selling authentic LV, Chloe and Fendi, that would be a different matter. This is disappointing but not technically wrong.

 

[lulilu]

Not worth the time.

 

[westvillage]

I think the line is when the copying agent uses the exact logo and in doing so puts forth the copy as a product of the original design house. The law allows for a LOT of pattern duplication but not duplication of a trademarked logo. So when this website/company says it is producing original work, they are saying that THEY are making the product and not claiming that it's a true BV or Chloe, etc. They're actually covering themselves with that line though to us it's offensive and untrue.