STYLE: Should we knock the knock-offs?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Gabrielle Poshadlo

I recently stumbled across a local e-commerce company that’s something like the Forever 21 of handbags. Like that fast-fashion retailer with a reputation for copying runway looks, the Greenwood-based Handbag Heaven’s stock clearly isn’t designer merchandise, but it looks a lot like it. And for about $50 a pop, the copies are good enough to be tempting. I’ve been thinking about the “Sami” bag in particular, since it bears a striking resemblance to the “Stam satchel” by Marc Jacobs, a bag I’ve lusted after for more than a year.

In light of the copyright infringement lawsuits Coach has brought against two Indianapolis retailers, I find myself wondering if my Sami purchase is an ethical one, especially as someone who appreciates apparel (and accessories) as an art form.

On one hand, I love designer goods and I believe that nothing beats the quality of a $900 dress or a $700 pair of shoes. I don’t think the buyers of such merchandise are just lusting after labels: Those with the means are willing to pay for such things because the solid construction and attention to detail make them worth it. That’s why I jump at the chance to own said merchandise whenever possible, like when I snagged a Prada cocktail number from Thrifty Threads for $85.

Style Handbag Heaven’s Sami bag, above, is a close imitation of Marc Jacob’s Stam Satchel, which retails for about $1,450. (Photo Courtesy Handbag Heaven)

That said, I tend to care less about the name inside a garment than I do the appearance and quality of an item. Handbag X could be made by Joe Schmo’s grandma for all I care; if it’s beautiful, it’s beautiful.

It’s by this reasoning I came to purchase an overtly counterfeit Cartier briefcase while vacationing in Belize. It’s red leather, embossed with the company’s logo. The price tag alone was enough to know it’s a fake ($200 vs. more than $2,000 for the real thing), but it would be a sharp-looking bag even if I didn’t know what the interlocking “C’s” stand for.

OK, so I do sometimes picture children in impoverished nations working their little fingers to the bone for pennies each day so stylish-but-cash-strapped people like me can carry a purse that looks like something I’ll never be able to afford. Yes, that thought makes me feel guilty. But so does shopping at Wal-Mart and changing the channel when a Christian Children’s Fund commercial comes on. I can live with the seedy underbelly, I guess, because I think every industry has one.

Fashion professionals have been trying to suppress the Forever 21s of the world since 1941, when the Fashion Originators’ Guild began registering designs and refusing to sell to retailers who dealt in copies. The Federal Trade Commission, however, said that was a no-no.

Designers are justifiably worried their merchandise will be devalued by the knock-off items. If a potential customer can’t tell the difference between the $1,450 Stam satchel and the $54.95 Sami bag, why would anyone in their right mind shell out the big bucks?

I’ll tell you why. The Stam satchel will last the wearer 10 years or more if she (or he) decides to keep it that long, whereas the chintzy Sami will last a few seasons before disintegrating. In fact, the black tiered BCBG-imposter dress I bought from Forever 21 last year has already begun to fray.

Of course, we all have to deal with our financial realities. The Sami bag is my only option. But if I ever do have the good fortune to have my choice between premium merchandise and its shadow, you can bet I’ll be about $1,450 poorer.

For now? The Sami will do—even if it carries a little guilt in addition to my Prada wallet and Kate Spade sunglasses (both the real deal).•


If you’d like to share your own style ideas or know anyone who’s making waves in the fashion community, contact Gabrielle Poshadlo at gposhadlo@ibj.com. This column appears monthly.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.