KEY POINTS:
LONDON - A lemon yellow dungaree dress sparked the latest battle between haute couture and the UK's high street yesterday, and not for its crimes against fashion.
The fast fashion chain Topshop was forced to destroy hundreds of dresses and pay thousands of pounds in legal costs, after being accused of copying the dress from designer Chloe.
This is the latest in a string of cases that have seen fashion houses hit back at high street copycats.
Almost 2,000 yellow dungaree mini-dresses were pulled from the shelves of Topshop after designers at Chloe spotted they were "nearly identical" to one of their own designs.
Topshop, which was selling the dress for £35, paid £12,000 in compensation and legal costs.
The original Chloe dress was on sale for £185, as part of the high fashion designer's See collection.
The dress is now listed as "out of stock" on Topshop's website, and has been taken out of its stores, but 774 were already sold before Chloe's lawyers stepped in.
Topshop, which has always loosely interpreted catwalk fashion, has not previously had any cases brought against it by the designer.
But the move from Chloe, whose handbags and clothes adorn a host of a-listers, is part of a wider crackdown on counterfeit clothes, to protect their reputation.
Sir Philip Green, head of Arcadia, the group that owns Topshop, told a paper that the company had never admitted to copying the dress.
The retail baron said: "We paid them £12,000 without any admission over whether it was or wasn't [a copy].
We felt it was easier to do that and get on with the rest of our lives".
However, Rachael Parman, a solicitor at Chloe's law firm Shoosmiths, told The Independent: "They did acknowledge that their use of the Chloe design constituted an infringement of design rights, that was part of the settlement.
The dresses are nearly identical."
Ms Parman also said that the fashion house had "other design infringement cases in the pipeline", but could not discuss them.
The solicitor said that such cases were becoming endemic in the high street, because fashion houses were waking up to the worth of their designs.
"It's a problem across the fashion industry and always has been", said Ms Parman.
"But now, brand owners are becoming wise to the value of protecting their brand and products."This is one of many cases brought against companies offering cheap imitations of Chloe's products.
Their trademark handbags, which often cost up to £1,000, have inspired designs in chain stores across the country, and action was quickly taken against those whose copies were too blatant.
One internet shop had to stop trading after its imitation of the Paddington bag, which features a distinctive padlock, was spotted by Chloe.
The site, called Bananasoup, was not the only one to fall foul of Chloe's beady eye.
Kookai also had to pull bags from the shelves after it resembled a snakeskin Chloe design too closely.
Chloe is not the only fashion house to take action against copycat designs.
Exclusive shoemakers Jimmy Choo had similar problems with imitations of their handbags and shoes cropping up on the high street, and forced M&S and New Look to destroy stock that bore too close a resemblance.
Now the law is helping high-end fashion labels to crack down on a tradition of design imitation between haute couture and the high street.
In a landmark case last year, a British judge ruled in favour of L'Oreal after they claimed the smell and packaging of their perfume had been copied by Belgian company Bel-lure.
The expert witness in the case, marketing analyst Thayne Forbes warned after the verdict, "Companies that are sailing a bit close to the wind will now have to be careful. The dividing line as to what people might think is all right has shifted quite a lot. It will now be more difficult to copy [designs] legally."
- INDEPENDENT
