(Courtesy of LoveAndCasinoWar.com)

As fashion’s heaviest hitters duke it out over intellectual property and design copyrights, fast fashion and streamlined manufacturing in Asia have made it easier than ever to translate trends into retail in record time. Sometimes it’s legal, sometimes it’s not. But in any case, is it ethical?

In this issue, we take a look at the reasons counterfeit goods have gone mainstream and when you should just say no to knockoffs:

• Is there really nothing new under the sun anymore? We ponder why knockoffs have become so prevalent.
• Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller makes the case that we are biologically hardwired to seek out status symbols — and whether they are authentic is besides the point. With that in mind, we review his well-researched book Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior.
• In the same vein, you may wonder – is buying fake every ethically warranted? Madison explores the problems and benefits of buying into trends.
• If you’re a dedicated online shopper, you want to make sure you’re not getting ripped off by knockoffs. But how? This handy guide to avoiding fakes will steer you in the right direction.
• And as always, check out Seam Ripper for more news and developments on the fakery front.

The train of thought behind the proliferation of knockoffs in modern fashion seems to say there really is nothing new under the sun.

(Courtesy of LoveAndCasinoWar.com)

Whereas every decade of the 20th century had its signature looks — flower children and mod in the ’60s, disco and glam rock in the ’70s, neon and Flashdance in the ’80s, grunge and heroin chic in the ’90s — the first decade of the new millennium has proven a bit harder to peg. It doesn’t even have a name that is universally used (the “two-thousands,” we guess?). How is it supposed to have a definitive style?

The ’00s was the era of bling and recession chic, of smoky eyes and smoke-free bars, of Bennifer and Brangelina. It was a bridge between centuries, both in the timeline and in its mish-mash blends of style. And brands knocking each other off — even at the top of the couture food chain — have become de rigeur in the fashion industry.

No big. Or is it?

As fashion’s heaviest hitters duke it out over intellectual property and design copyrights, fast fashion and streamlined manufacturing in Asia have made it easier than ever to translate trends into retail in record time. Sometimes it’s legal, sometimes it’s not. But in any case, is it ethical?

In this issue, we take a look at the reasons counterfeit goods have gone mainstream and when you should just say no to knockoffs.

Evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller makes the case that we are biologically hardwired to seek out status symbols — and whether they are authentic is besides the point. With that in mind, we review his well-researched book Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior.

In the same vein, you may wonder — is buying fake every ethically warranted? Madison explores the problems and benefits of buying into trends.

If you’re a dedicated online shopper, you want to make sure you’re not getting ripped off by knockoffs. But how? This handy guide to avoiding fakes will steer you in the right direction.

And as always, check out Seam Ripper for more news and developments on the fakery front.

(Courtesy of Kmart.com)

Got a real craving for more fake? Here are some other stories on the topic from the Behind the Seams blog.

• Kmart has a faithful knockoff of the uber-popular “Houlihan” cargo pants by J Brand. But is borrowing a design fair game, or cause for intellectual-property war?
• Counterfeit fashion is enjoying a surge during the recession — and it’s not just $2,000 Louis Vuitton bags that are now being illegally copied.
• A fur-labeling bill has passed the California Assembly, requiring retailers who sell clothes and accessories laced with any amount of fur to disclose that information on garment labels. Previously, items with less than $150 worth of fur could be sold without a label, leading many consumers to mistakenly believe real fur to be faux.
• Luxury jeweler Cartier has sued sample-sale website Hautelook.com for allegedly selling used, unauthentic, and factory seconds under the Cartier name, “causing immediate and irreparable harm to the Cartier brand and trademark,” according to the legal complaint.
• Do “purse parties” lead women to feel so guilty about buying a knockoff that they ultimately go on to purchase the real thing? Some new research says this is more common than you’d think.

In his 2009 book Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior, Geoffrey Miller explores a Darwinist angle to consumerism and what shoppers try to communicate through their purchasing behavior. In the process, he probes a valid evolutionary perspective for why fakes are enduringly popular and — in his view — a better use of money than buying the authentic counterpart.

(Courtesy of Amazon.com)

Miller, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico, holds that trying to win the respect and admiration of the opposite sex and compete with sexual rivals drives the most basic of our consumerist impulses.

That desire for the latest lipstick or blush? Miller asserts it’s born from the subconscious desire to look as young and fertile as possible and attract the best quality of men. For men, the draw of a fast car is to signal to women that he’s wealthy enough to spend on nonessential goods, thus advertising himself as an available mate with excessive resources to spend on offspring.

Miller argues that counterfeit status symbols (like purses for women, or Rolex watches for men) are one way to signal wealth to other people without monopolizing monetary resources. If that’s true, it’s no wonder we’re perhaps evolutionarily inclined to buy them.

So what’s the point in shelling out for the real thing? If no one can tell the difference, the value of paying more for an authentic luxury good is limited, Miller says.

“The fake ultimately illuminates and challenges the real, as consumers begin to question why they should pay the ‘real’ product’s premium. Why bother with a real $8,000 3-carat diamond for an engagement ring, when a $4 [cubic zirconia] stone is indistinguishable to most people?” he writes.

One counter-argument would be that it’s emotionally dishonest to give someone a big ol’ CZ while pretending it’s a diamond — the emotional fallout of such a lie could potentially be relationship-ending and thus evolutionarily void.

But for the most part, he continues, ”The fakes reveal what a high proportion of the real products cost: a luxury brand markup, a pure profit premium, a con. The irony is that, with regard to purely pragmatic value, the ‘real’ version of the product is a bigger rip-off than the ‘fake’ version.”

So is imitation the sincerest form of flattery? From an eco point of view, the Darwinist perspective doesn’t take into account ethical standards of production — only the value of signaling biological fitness. But there’s evolutionary purpose in signaling a commitment to ethical ideals as well in an evolved society.

Purchasing a counterfeit designer purse produced in a Chinese sweatshop using child labor announces that the buyer doesn’t give a whit about the origin of her handbag, just that she wants to be mistaken for a woman of high status. And that kind of posturing is perceived in poor taste by the very people she is arguably trying to fool — the ones who can identify a fake from arm’s length.

If you’re looking for an academic angle on why we buy luxury goods, Miller’s well-researched book sheds some (often controversial) light on the power of consumerism and the species-furthering point it serves.

It used to be that fakes were easily spotted a mile away — the “Channel” purses and “Goach” wallets were dead giveaways that you had probably picked it up on a trip to New York’s Canal Street.

(Courtesy of Naco-Paris.com)

But the Internet has allowed counterfeit fashion to proliferate, and even seemingly trustworthy websites are getting busted for selling fakes. Most recently, sale shoppers everywhere were disappointed to learn that sample sale clearinghouse Hautelook.com is on the receiving end of a lawsuit from Cartier for selling “inauthentic” watches and jewelry.

The reason that more people are getting duped by dupes? As Chinese factory operations have become more streamlined, efficient, and experienced, the quality of counterfeit goods has increased — as has volume. Especially in a slow economy when Chinese factories are sitting around with nothing to do, the answer is often “fake it ’til you make it.”

As we’ve covered before, the Internet has been a godsend to con men and women everywhere trying to pass off bogus goods as real. And it’s not just Louis Vuitton getting knocked off anymore. Counterfeit midmarket goods like Ugg Australia boots and Anya Hindmarch bags are springing up all across the web at prices close to retail but just discounted enough to entice deal-hunters into thinking they’ve scored.

So how do you protect yourself from unwittingly buying a fake? Here are a few questions to ask yourself before you buy online:

• Where was the item manufactured? A whopping 79 percent of counterfeit goods come from China. And while many apparel brands have moved their manufacturing operations to cost-friendly Asia, not all have. If you receive a product bearing a “Made in China” tag when you know it should have been assembled in America or Italy, you’ve been bamboozled.
• What’s the seller’s reputation? On eBay, iOffer, or Bonanzle, anyone can become a seller of goods — genuine or not — overnight. Feedback provides some information, but it’s only as reliable as the people who have gone before you. Try to buy from established boutiques with dedicated customer service departments for some assurance.
• Is the seller an authorized dealer? Check the brand’s website or call customer service to see if you can get a list of authorized sellers. In the Ugg example mentioned above, UggAustralia.com has taken steps to inform consumers on how to spot a fake. Enter the URL of the boutique in its Counterfeit Website Look Up database to see if the company is an authorized dealer. If it’s not, steer clear.
• What’s the return policy? Ideally, a seller will stand behind the product and permit you to return anything for any reason. Then it’s up to you to inspect the item and send it back within the terms of that agreement, so don’t delay in giving your new garment or accessory a thorough once-over until you’re satisfied that you’ve gotten what you bargained for.

(Courtesy of Samantha Thavasa)

The feds who track the import of counterfeit goods have their work cut out: During this recessionary economy, when consumers are foraging for deals, fake fashion is enjoying an unprecedented surge in demand.

The New York Times describes how it’s not just high-end purses that are now being knocked off:

“If there is demand, there will be supply,” said John Spink, associate director of the Anti-Counterfeiting and Product Protection Program at Michigan State University. In China, he said, “It’s all of a sudden them saying, ‘We have low capacity. What can we make?’ ”

The answer is increasingly knockoffs of lesser-known brands, which are easy to sell on the Internet, can be priced higher than obvious fakes, and avoid the aggressive programs by the big luxury brands to protect their labels, retail companies and customs enforcement officials say.

The results: Faux Samantha Thavasa bags for $113 and Ed Hardy hoodie sweatshirts for $82.50. And, bizarrely, imitations that are more expensive than the real ones: In 2007, Anya Hindmarch sold canvas totes that said “I’m Not a Plastic Bag” for $15. Now fakes are available on the Web for $99.

The internet has revolutionized the fakery business — especially sites like eBay. Ethical consumers need to be on their guard for deals that are too good to be true on goods that are anything but the real deal.

(Courtesy of Kmart.com)

By now you’ve probably heard of the J Brand “Houlihan” phenomenon. The company’s skinny cargo pants (which are sadly not part of the line’s awesome organic Green Label) are flying off the shelves this summer, and everyone wants a piece of the action.

Enter Kmart. In the span of just a couple of months, design execs at the discount retailer (or more precisely, its overseas factories) have whipped up a pretty close copy of the Houlihan for its Kmart Design collection.

The jeans, which are being promoted in the September issue of Vogue, will reportedly retail for less than $100 on Kmart.com, as compared to the $230 price tag on the real deal.

But what about protecting designer creativity? As far as we can tell, Kmart hasn’t ripped off the J Brand label or pocket detail, but every other element of the pants are copied down to the last stitch.

What do you think: Is this a fair appropriation of a trendy new style, or an intellectual property grey area?

(via Denimology)

Yesterday, Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed a new law that would enable designers to patent their ideas in an effort to crack down on counterfeiting and copyright infringement in the fashion world.

The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act is backed by both the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) and the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). It aims to succeed where other efforts to protect intellectual property in fashion have failed, such as the Design Piracy Prohibition Act of 2007.

The New York Times reports:

“In the first go-around there was nothing that gave our members protection,” Kevin Burke, president and chief executive officer of the AAFA said, adding that there was “a vast difference” in the Schumer bill. “It provides the protection for unique design.”

The proposed legislation provides very limited intellectual property protection to the most original design. A designer who claims that his work has been copied must show that his design provides “a unique, distinguishable, non-trivial and non-utilitarian variation over prior designs.” And it must be proven by the designer that the copy is “substantially identical” to the original so as to be mistaken for it. The bill would cover all fashion designs, including products like handbags, belts and sunglasses, for a three-year period from the time the item is seen in public—on a runway, say. Factors than can’t be used in determining the uniqueness of a design are color, patterns and a graphic element.

In other words: In the event of a copyright dispute, the onus is on the designer to prove that his or her design is the most original.

For another point of view about why such legislation is unnecessary, check out this piece by USC economist Krisztina Holly.

Swiss luxury jeweler Cartier has filed suit against members-only shopping website HauteLook.com for allegedly selling counterfeit, damaged, and secondhand jewelry bearing the Cartier name.

Cartier reportedly bought five watches from Hautelook to check them for quality, and the inspection resulted in the lawsuit. In it, Cartier says Hautelook never “partnered with Cartier and is not an authorized dealer of Cartier’s merchandise.”

According to Reuters:

HauteLook is “causing immediate and irreparable harm to the Cartier brand and trademark,” Cartier said in its 36-page complaint filed on Tuesday evening in Manhattan federal court.

Cartier claimed that HauteLook has sold used Cartier watches despite maintaining on its website that it “never” sells “secondhand merchandise, ever.”

It also said HauteLook has also sold Cartier goods that were damaged, were shipped in the wrong packaging, or carried defaced authenticity certificates, and sometimes included a Cartier warranty booklet though the warranty did not apply.

Cartier is rumored to be asking for more than $2-million in compensatory damages. At best, this is an “oops” of major proportions; at worst, it’s fraud.

A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research shows that big-spending consumers are moving away from buying luxury goods with conspicuous logos, thanks in part to the prevalence of counterfeit goods.

It’s a trend that fashion’s biggest houses are noting with interest:

“It’s the age of Bottega,” says [stylist Robert] Verdi referring to Bottega Veneta’s successful line of handbags with the logo hidden inside.

Other famously logo-friendly brands are following suit. Chanel’s latest line of eyewear moved away from the iconic oversized C’s in favor of a smaller printed reference. Fendi replaced the logo on some of it’s eyewear with stitching down the temples. Versace and Valentino are incorporating color, braiding and metal into their glasses in place of a garish signature.

“Gucci is doing sweaters with a tone-on-tone version of the company’s old crest. If it were a few years ago it may have been done as a more prominent embroidery,” says GQ’s Creative Director, Jim Moore.

The exception? Louis Vuitton posted a record-breaking 53 percent jump in profits for the second quarter of 2010 — meaning the company’s iconic monogram goods are still selling like hotcakes.