Fake Fashion Products: Pending Legislation Aims to Quash the Success of Stores like Forever 21 and H&M

Retail stores like H&M and Forever 21 have risen to quick success because they ride along the backs of the trends. Fast fashion is the name of the game when it comes to what these types of stores sell because they are good at copying the real thing. Whether it be a Marc Jacobs bag or a Chloe dress, the fakes have sometimes gotten as good as the real thing - and they're even better because they're cheapier.

On any given day, a person can stroll down Los Angeles' famous Santee Alley and walk in any purse or accessories store to find some really good knock-off designer bags or jewelry. Some merchandise is obviously fake with labels like "Channel" (instead of Chanel) or patterns that look like a Louis Vuitton purse from afar (but upon closer inspection look nothing like the real thing).

Those are obvious fakes, but what about the pieces of merchandise that runs a close second to the real thing but may be is a little bit different in details like buttons or placements of a collar or draped piece of fabric? Should those come under just as much scrutiny?

According to the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, artwork such as brand labels or logos are protected. Thus, if another company or designer obviously copies those things, they can be sued. However, when it comes to a pattern, they are fair game for copycats. So, the question is whether patterns should be protected.

Diane Von Furstenberg and Hillary Rodham Clinton think so. The two have drafted a pending bill in the Senate which would cover everything in the Copyright Act of 1976, but also expand it to a product's likeness for three years.

If passed, this would mean stores such as Forever 21, ABS, Bebe and H&M that get their kicks and their sales from tailgating off of the designer world could be sued and sued some more. As it is Forever 21 has had 20 copyright or trademark lawsuits filed against it in just this past year alone.

It's true that a store like Forever 21 can pass off cheap knock-offs, but whether those pieces can be construed as the real thing is another matter. The lawsuits pending against the company seem more like show than anything else. It seems more like a quest for the designer plaintiff suing the company to say "Ha ha. Get your own original designs."

The problem is, what exactly can be considered original in the world of fashion. In reality, every trend and every design rides off of the back of something else and something from another era. Is there really such a thing as originality when it comes to the legal definition of that term? If the Furstenberg/Clinton proposal does become law, what are the ramifications for the fashion industry?

Many people are saying that this could inevitably end up causing designers to be in and out of courtrooms every week since there are only so many ways to cut a jacket or a blouse or a pair of jeans. So, how do you determine the originality of a piece?

In the end, does it really matter? People copy everything everytime the season changes. So when the next season comes, a designer creates something new. Others copy and then by that time the cycle just repeats itself.

That is not to say there is nothing wrong with copycats. There is something wrong with designers or companies that ride on the success of others because they're too lazy or unoriginal to create their own designs. But creating the legal framework to do more harm than good doesn't do much to solve the inevitable.

In the case of a store like Forever 21, it's blatantly obvious that those items can never be construed as the real thing of whatever the company attempts to copy. They do a good job in creating a likeness, but the quality is never going to be the same as the real thing. And when it comes to designer wear, that will always be the distinction - hence the reason for the higher price tags. The distinction is always in the details of anything in the fashion world.

Sure, Target has gotten trendier by copying what is selling in higher-priced fashion retailers and houses, but that doesn't mean they're a real threat to the original designer because their pieces area always a slight downgrade from the original.

With fashions changing all the time, it makes no sense to pass this new law. While it has good intentions in attempting to get people to create their own designs rather than overtly copying someone else's, it really doesn't enforce that ideal. And in reality, it would be too difficult actually enforce that law.