You think with all the bad press, that’d lay low with all the stealing…OH NO!

On the right, Chloe Dress. Left, UO knockoffOn the left, Chloe’s Gemma dress, from the 06′ spring line. On the right. Yet ANOTHER blatant rip off from Urban Outfitters brand LUX. Good god, don’t they ever learn?

And if that wasn’t enough. Karma Loop for I’m sure the 20th time themselves have the same ripoff of the dress.  Clothing company “BB Dakota” have what they call  the Portia Shift, when in reality it’s the EXACT SAME DAMN THING!!

Yet ANOTHER rip off from Karma Loop

Posted by jonennui  |  20 Comments  |  in Uncategorized


  1. Cody 12/04/2007 5:57 am

    Yeah but theirs has a belt!

  2. TM 12/04/2007 6:51 am

    First off, none of these dresses have any real original attributes (all silhouettes used in modern production stem from historical dress).

    This is akin to blasting T-Shirt manufacturers for having the same design.

    The body shape, yes is somewhat similar, but compare all the panels, and what do you know, the antique lace patterns are different. Don’t forget significant costing differences in fabric, labor and accessories

    The cuff on the Chloe version is larger and appears to be gathered tighter at the wrist, creating a slight bell effect.

    The sweep (bottom edge of the skirt) on the URBN and BBDakota Version appears to be loosely pleated or gathered -the Chloe version is not. Also the plackets on all three vary significantly, with the Chloe version sporting frayed edges or ruffles (can’t be sure from photo)

    Anyway, I’m not here to absolve URBN for their sins. It takes a critical eye to spot the subtle differences and I find it best to pick winning battles (like blatant artwork theft).

    Don’t forget, IKEA and URBN exist because of a demand for cost-effective, functional and forward- designs.

  3. susie 12/04/2007 5:00 pm

    This is exactly why the design piracy law is before congress. Not one but many have knocked off the Look, fit, and feel of garment.The key here is timing. They are putting out their product most likely before the original designer has it in stores and at a fraction of the cost. Aside from some minor changes, it is a copy.

    I worked for B.B.Dakota when they use to do private label. The owner would fly to London. Bring back hundreds of items and knock them off and say it was the B.B.Dakota line. Shocking huh. Not really. 90% of the fashion industry operates like this. Why do they operate like this. It is faster, cost effective. trend proof, and no one holds them accountable. We didn’t even have a designer on staff when I worked their. I assumed they changed their ways since in the last few years they have been trying to become a recognizable brand in the market place. Which would make me think they would want their own look and feel.

    The Design Piracy Law. Look It up. Don’t pay attention to what the law professors say. Read what the designers who have this constantly happen to them have to say. No other industry gets away with this. The laws in place do not protect design. Only graphics .

    I also worked for Mossimo. He would follow trends but every garment he put out had his mark on it. If he would have done a version of the dress it would be similar but not copied and that is the difference. The fashion
    industry has lost it’s moral compass. How can we blame them since NO ONE HOLDS THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

  4. tekel 12/05/2007 4:03 am

    Protection for clothing design is a terrible idea. In the current environment of RIAA lawsuits and HDMI-compliant televisions, we should be working to REDUCE the protections of intellectual property law, not to increase their scope.

    Clothing will never receive copyright protection, at least not in the US. Just won’t happen. That ship has sailed. It’s like cooking- no copyright on recipes. Food and clothing are outside the scope of the intellectual property monopoly, and that’s how it should be. There are strong public policy reasons for this:

    For both food and clothing, there is no separation between the idea and the expression of the idea. You can’t copyright ideas, because that would stifle the flow of information within a culture. You can’t copyright recipes, because everyone should be able to make pancakes in their own home. Even if you had a protection on the recipe, and you won an injunction, there would be no practical way to enforce it because people could just eat the evidence… The creative aspects of food are entirely subsumed by the functional aspects. Clothing is the same way. Co you want to be the guy whose job it is to patrol new york city, stripping blue jeans off homeless people to check whether they’re a knockoff of someone else’s design?

    Yeah, “don’t listen to the law professors.” Because I’m sure Congress is going to take the word of Bobby Trendy and a bunch of poor oppressed Project Runway fashionistas over the guys at Harvard Law.

    It’s a freaking ruffled white shirt people, not the Mona Lisa. Have some sense of perspective. The chicks who buy this will wear it four times and then throw it out, or give it to goodwilll or whatever and buy the next trendy crap that comes out in the spring. There’s nothing creative or original or innovative about it. The fact that three other companies are making exactly the same damn thing just proves the point.

  5. Anthony to the S. 12/05/2007 4:18 am

    but who’s got the better looking models hmmmmm…. i keed. stealing is unhealthy!

  6. susie 12/05/2007 6:23 pm

    I don’t think the folks at harvard law have ever spent $300,000. for a runway show to then have their designs in Forever21 the next day. Getting a garment to fit correctly is art .

  7. marilyn 12/11/2007 5:32 am

    It completely disgusts me how the public has absolutely no respect for designers and their products!

  8. tekna2007 12/18/2007 3:29 am

    What the proposed and so-called “Design Piracy Law” would do is take ideas that anyone can use and give control of those ideas to a very few designers — those with the most money and the best lawyers. The ideas they want to “protect” have been around for hundreds of years — nature as inspiration, anyone? If you wonder why concentration of wealth is occurring so dramatically in the United States, look at (among other influences) intellectual property laws like this. They’re great if you’re one of the few who happen to lay claim to these preexisting ideas at the time the law goes into effect, and terrible for the rest of us.

  9. susie 12/18/2007 9:27 pm

    Tekna2007: From what one of OUR senators in Washington DC has told me I am going to have to disagree with you. The design piracy law before congress will protect the small designer. Here is what she has to say.

    While the fashion industry has been both creative and profitable without any form of copyright protection thus far, research done by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property suggests that approximately $12 billion in revenue is lost each year due to design piracy. Simply because some designers have been successful does not mean that there should be an exception to Congress’ constitutional obligation to protect inventors and artists.

    While certain aspects of designs are capable of being protected, such as a logo under trademark law, an entire garment itself can copied and sold at will so long as it is not under a counterfeit label. Also, not every aspiring designer can become a Ralph Lauren or Calvin Klein if his designs can be freely copied and stolen. Design copyright is intended to protect smaller designers and students so they can become widely-known designers. Smaller designers who lack brand recognition are the ones who are most defenseless against piracy, as their designs can be replicated without the average consumer even knowing that the knock-off is a copy of someone else’s work.

    Currently, design pirates can use digital images taken at fashion shows or premieres and replicate a design in a matter of days. In fact, knock-off garments are now often marketed before the originals, and one major pirate has been attributed with $200 million in annual revenue from its knock-off sales.

    As drafted, current legislation would give designers protection for a relatively short period of time: three years. While Europe offers designs 25 years of protection and Japan offers 15 years, three years of protection is a limited time period so a designer may recoup the work that went into designing the article and develop additional lines of ready-to-wear items before the design becomes public.

  10. tekna2007 12/19/2007 1:27 am

    Your senator’s statement begins with the assumption that what is happening is piracy, when it is actually not piracy. The rest of the statement reasons from this fallacious assumption and reaches flawed conclusions from it.

    These are freely-available ideas that anyone can use, and a select few would like to make it so that only they can use them. I understand why they wish things were more in their favor, but there’s no reason the rest of us should go along with it.

    Respectfully disagreeing,

  11. A_Designer 12/19/2007 1:15 pm

    First off, the Chloe dress shown like so many things by “major” labels, is NOT an original. It is merely current release of past design. You need not look far into design archives before finding scores of little white shifts/dresses just like this that were produced by other design labels.

    Fashion is extremely cyclical, with very, very little that is truly original. I challenge you to pick out one clothing item recently released & worn recently that didn’t already exist in past eras (eg swinging 60s, groovy 70s, roaring 20s, etc.)

    Therefore, the ripoff claim is not valid. Furthermore, labels like Zara, H&M, etc. are quite upfront about the fact that they grab their designs off the runways of the biggies. Why don’t these big brands sue them? Perhaps b/c the claim would be ultimately found to be without merit? Plus, the Chloe client who is very different from the mass-design client, so both ends of the market have different focus.

  12. susie 12/19/2007 8:06 pm

    Designers may be be inspired by the past but they are creating something new and original by blending past with present. By the way the garment fits, the fabric and print. Which takes hours of time and creativity. AND risk. Who is to say the public will want to buy it if you are the one doing it first and bringing back a trend or creating a new one.

    Lets say a big designer is inspired by at 1920″s flapper dress. So, he creates a line around that style but he update’s it and make it his own by the way it fits and the fabrics he uses and the little details of design. At time of runway show no other designer is doing this updated 1920′s style and know one knows if it will sell. The runway show is a success and everyone wants the line. Lets say Forever 21 in is at the show. They see it was a success and they take photo’s and email them to the factory in China. 4 weeks later the line has been copied and is now being sold in Forever 21 at a fraction of the cost. Before the big designer has it in his stores. And somehow some think that this is okay?

    If the Design Piracy law was in place Forever21 wouldn’t be able to copy the EXACT same design. They would have to sit down and create their own 1920 ‘s line. That is what this is all about . The fact that they copy. The fact that they are in the fast fashion business and don’t have time to be creative isn’t our problem. And the law should pass to better protect the designer who spent hours of time creating his line.

  13. Kevin 12/20/2007 2:09 am

    Design Wants to be Free!

    electronic frontier foundation

  14. Virginia 01/12/2008 1:50 am

    I could understand how one would be upset over more commercial brands using the same design to create a ridiculously similar garment for much less.

    But the question is, why does it even matter?

    Anyone who pays a ridiculous amount of money for something they will not wear for more than 10 years is hardly rational. It only makes sense that people would want to buy something similar and keep it for around a year or maybe even longer than a year.

    $600 for one dress is not justified. It did not cost $600 to make that dress, nor to even adjust the recycled style to fit with modern times.

    Is it so wrong that Urban Outfitters and BB Dakota make similar designs so the average human being can purchase a garment without sacrificing his or her rent for the next month?

    I hardly think this is a crime, let alone stealing. It is simply good marketing, and the consequences of underestimating the thrifty public.

  15. Mike Dimmick 02/22/2008 6:58 pm


    It could well cost $600 to make one dress if it’s being assembled by hand by a skilled worker – perhaps even the designer themselves, though probably not for Chloe – in the West. Urban Outfitters and BB Dakota will have adapted the design for mass-production typically in a low-wage country and will be amortizing the cost of making the templates for mass-production over many thousands of garments. They may well be using lower-quality fabrics as well, for example mass-produced pattern lace rather than lace hand-crafted for this design (I don’t know if this is true, but it looks fairly irregular in the original).

    There’s a skill in adapting a design for mass-production, but they should be compensating the original designer for the design they’re ripping off. That’s the point. The designer is only recouping their design costs – which is whatever time they spent doing it at whatever rate they feel their time is worth – over only a few garments, but if someone rips it off, it may not be possible to sell enough to cover their expenses. At this point they’re relying on label snobbery to do so.

    And of course it’s possible that both rip-offs are actually done by the same company supplying both shops, that is, it’s the same garment.

    The problem with people who aren’t the original designer posting these things here is that you don’t know whether the original designer licensed the design to the mass producers.

  16. Morganza 04/28/2008 6:53 pm

    i like the belt tho

  17. Pingback: Urban Counterfeiters « daradotdesigns


  19. Pingback: Counterfeit is the New Black: Copyright, Fashion, and Forever21 | The Legality

  20. Caroline 09/25/2012 1:30 am

    Ok, look. Ripping off a design from Chloe is completely different than ripping a design off from an independent designer on, say, As someone who worked in the fashion industry professionally, in design in fact, for many years, I personally would get orders to knock things off. As someone who takes pride in my profession I would try to put a twist on it, but bottom line, fashion is trickle-up-trickle-down, and that’s how it is. So, While I agree that UO is a douche for ripping off and deviantart artists’ work, I don’t really give a crap if they copy some Chloe dress that no one I know would be able to afford the original of. And seriously, they’re not alone. Every single major retailer in America out there does it. I am not trying to be cynical, but honestly, the best approach is to use the creativity you have, keep going, and just make something even better. Encourage independent stores and designers,a nd vote with your dollar.

Post a Comment