The Fast and the Fashionable

nush — Tue, 30 Jun 2020 16:03:02 GMT

The Relationship Between Celebrities and Fast Fashion

While clothing started out as a necessity, its evolution into fashion has given it a lot more meaning. Clothing is associated with utility, comfort or even uniformity- in schools and certain professions. Fashion has a close relationship with personal identity. It serves as a means for one to belong to a community or to set one apart from everyone else. Fashion is a means of self-expression and creativity- not only of the designer but also the individual that puts together different items in order to create an outfit. Fashion has also been a means to differentiate among various social and/or economic classes of society. Display of wealth through dress became customary in Europe in the late thirteenth century.¹ Certain styles would be adorned by the elite classes to show off their wealth. In turn, the masses would try to incorporate these trends to try and fit in with the wealthier classes. As a result, the elite would move on to a new trend in order to continue to distinguish themselves from the subjacent classes, and thus set off a new cycle of trends. In other words, “Fashion was thought to arise in the form of styles which demarcate an elite group”². Society has progressed since the thirteenth century but fashion continues to be a form of class differentiation, perhaps more subtle in the twenty first century.

The fashion industry is projected to be worth 1.5 trillion dollars in 2020³, and this figure is only projected to increase every year. Certain brands have earned a name for themselves as status symbols. Those adorning items produced by these brands are associated with wealth. The rich and famous are seen wearing exclusive products from high end brands, which leave the masses wanting to copy them.

For the longest time, the general public have tried to adapt celebrity styles into their wardrobe. With the rise of social media, it has become easier than ever to “follow” celebrities and keep up with their lives. The brands that they associate themselves with or are seen wearing, are considered to be the new trend. While only a fraction of them can afford items from the same luxury brands as their favourite celebrities, people turn to other options in order to find similar styles at cheaper prices.

These alternatives may come in the form of knockoffs or dupes and counterfeits. While both knockoffs and counterfeits are essentially copies of a product, they are significantly different.

Counterfeit vs Knockoff

A counterfeit item can be defined as “a nearly exact duplicate of an item sold with the intent to be passed off as the original.”⁴ These items may be identical to the original, down to the logo. They are likely to made using cheaper materials, using cheap labour and will be of poorer quality than the original item. The counterfeit industry still thrives because there are consumers that wish to associate themselves with luxury brands, but they may not have access to such items- either due to their exclusivity or the price.

Knockoffs, on the other hand are inspired by high end items that dictate the trends each season. They offer an economical alternative for consumers wanting to keep up with trends. They may take inspiration from elements of their high-end counterparts; such as the fabric, patterns and designs that are seen on runways and on celebrities. It is usually easy to differentiate between an original product and a knockoff. The knockoff culture has existed for several years- with fashion magazines having sections such as “steal her style” for “get the look for less”. Knockoffs are created to provide access to stylish pieces of clothing to a demographic that may not be able to afford original high end brands. Fast fashion brands such as Forever 21, Zara, H&M, Missguided, etc are notorious for doing this.

Fast Fashion: The Area between a Counterfeit and a Knockoff?

Fast fashion brands can be defined as businesses that “chum out low-cost imitations of high-fashion styles within weeks of their debut on the runway.”⁵ In other words, fast fashion brands focus on quantity over quality. They aim at consumers that wish to keep up with current trends but cannot afford to buy the high end product. Julia Wang, a designer has even recognised the gap between luxury brands and the majority of consumers by saying ““19 year old non-trust fund baby picking up an Alexander Wang knock-off bag at Forever 21 is never going to be able to afford the real thing.”⁶ In order to cater to them, fast fashion businesses rapidly introduce hundreds and thousands of new items every week, that are knock-offs of high-end products either straight from the runway or items spotted on celebrities.

While designers create styles, celebrities play a major role in making them trends. Instagram has several accounts dedicated to finding knockoffs for celebrity outfits, and fast fashion brands capitalise off this. Celebrities need the fast-fashion attention, and the fast-fashion brands certainly need their celebrity cachet.⁷ Fast fashion brands rely on celebrities and their fans in order for their items to be popular. Celebrities also rely on fast fashion brands in order to stay relevant. Celebrities do this by collaborating with fast fashion brands to promote their signature styles. Consumers want others to perceive a different version of themselves, which usually involves luxury, following in the footsteps of celebrities. In a market where fashion is associated with wealth, luxury brands become the trendsetters. Consumers strive to put on a facade of wealth and fast fashion helps them do that.

While fast fashion has severe environmental consequences along with questionable human rights related practices, this essay aims to discuss the relationship between fast fashion and celebrities or influencers, keeping in mind the legality of manufacturing and marketing knock-offs.

IP and Fashion

Intellectual Property Law has not been known to reward fashion designers in most jurisdictions. Copyright does not extend to items of clothing. Copyright law can only protect elements of a garment that are creative and “totally irrelevant to the utilitarian functions”⁸. This means an individual garment cannot be copyright protectable, as it serves the purpose of clothing, regardless of whether or not it has a unique design. However, its creative elements that have no functional use such as the prints may be protected under copyright.

In the EU however, original fashion designs were allowed to be protected for a period of five, with the option to renew it. Despite this, there hasn’t been much utilisation of this regulation. This could be due to the cost and time associated with registering a trademark compared to the fast paced fashion industry where trends change within weeks.

Moreover, going by the Piracy Paradox, some believe that copying is not necessarily harmful for the fashion industry. “Without copying, the fashion industry would be smaller, weaker and less powerful,”⁹. Copying is one of the factors that helps new trends get introduced in the fashion world. Fashion is a positional good. The value of relative exclusivity may be a large part of the goods’ total appeal.¹⁰

High end brands produce garments that are copied by fast fashion brands. Fast fashion helps to lower if not completely bridge the gap between the elite and the masses. As a result, the elite look for new luxury items to buy, thereby setting off a new cycle of trends. In this way, “piracy paradoxically benefits designers by inducing more rapid turnover and additional sales.”¹¹

Since copyright law does not confer much protection to fashion, brands make use of trademark law by protecting their logos from being copied. This is where a major difference between knockoffs and counterfeit items becomes relevant; their legality. Counterfeit items copy every aspect of the original product, including their logo which is trademark protected. They can also be said to mislead customers who may purchase counterfeited goods thinking that they are getting the real item- this is very common on online marketplaces such as eBay.

Knockoffs on the other hand are known for ripping off high end designs however, they are not breaking the law by doing so. Knockoffs copy the overall appearance of other brands, however they do not copy their marks or logos- which are protected from unauthorised reproduction. Due to this, fast fashion brands usually get away with blatantly copying designs from other brands.

Fast Fashion v Celebrities

https://medium.com/media/09aa71d4444e869280b708b26e1bcfb6/href

That being said, there have been instances where fast fashion brands have faced legal trouble. For example, Ariana Grande sued Forever 21 for “appropriating her identity for its own commercial benefit”¹² after they used a lookalike and outfits practically identical to those in her 7 Rings music video.

Fast fashion brands have been using social media to build up their consumer base and also to continue marketing to their existing customers. They use Sites such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc to promote new items and offers. Sometimes, they also try to use pop culture as a method to engage more users. In order to do this, they post pictures of celebrities, most likely without any authorisation. This is itself is another complicated area of IP law, however social media is mainly about reposting and sharing works creating by users and since everyone wants exposure to a greater audience, there are not many complaints about copyright infringement.

The Kardashian-Jenner family is undoubtedly one of the most popular muses for fast fashion brands. Fast fashion brands produce knockoffs of their outfits, within weeks or even days of the stars being spotted in them.

Kim Kardashian is not a designer and therefore it does not seem effective or even logical for her to sue a company for copying one of her looks. However, Kim Kardashian sued the fast fashion company Missguided for using her name and likeness in order to promote their knockoff designs. This incident was sparked by an Instagram post that Missguided made. Kardashian originally posted an Instagram post with the caption “Fast fashion brands can you please wait until I wear this in real life before you knock it off?”. Missguided then posted a picture with a model wearing a dupe of the same dress with the caption “The devil works hard but Missguided works harder. @kimkardashian, you’ve only got a few days before this drops online.”

Her lawsuit stated that “Missguided systematically uses the names and images of Kardashian and other celebrities to advertise and spark interest in its website and clothing.” In her lawsuit Kim Kardashian listed the instances where Missguided have pictures of her on their Instagram- as memes or for other reasons. Moreover, the Instagram post made by Missguided about the knockoff dress, in response to Kardashian’s original post may be misleading to some consumers who may believe that Kardashian is endorsing Missguided’s products. This may be harmful to her brand, as consumers might believe that she is affiliated with a business that sells cheap and lower quality versions of brands that she is often seen wearing. Kardashian argues that Missguided uses her name and images in order to sell their clothes, and going so far as to have a section to “Shop Kim K”, which compiles all the items that have been inspire by her looks.

This is similar to the Robyn ‘Rihanna’ Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd¹³ case wherein Topshop was sued by the pop singer Rihanna for selling a t-shirt with a picture of her on it. Topshop had licensed this image from the photographer who had taken it on set of one of her music videos. They had the rights to that photo in that respect. It is already known that a subject of a photograph does not own the rights to it. Celebrities have been sued by various paparazzi photographers for posting photos taken by them without giving credit or obtaining licenses. In the UK, there are no image rights, which meant that Rihanna had no control over how her image was being used. In this case, Lord Justice Kitchin stated that “The mere sale by a trader of a t-shirt bearing an image of a famous person does not, in and of itself amount to passing off.”¹⁴

The reason that celebrities are able to claim damages for having their images or likeness used without authorisation, especially in the UK, is due to the law of passing off. The law of passing off prevents one party’s goods from being passed off as another’s. However, as was stated in the Fenty v Arcadia case, the law of passing off is to protect “the claimant’s trade goodwill from harm”¹⁵. The judges in the Fenty case followed the three elements laid out by Lord Oliver in 1990.¹⁶

The first condition was that the claimant must establish a goodwill attached to the goods or services, which has a distinct name or feature that the public can recognise it as the claimant’s goods. Rihanna had made “considerable efforts to promote an association in the public mind between herself and the world of fashion”¹⁷ and as a result was “regarded a style icon”¹⁸. Rihanna claimed that she had a brand with goodwill and the sale of a product by Topshop with her photo on it would mislead consumers into believing that it was a collaboration, or that she was affiliated with the brand.

The second condition was that the claimant must demonstrate misrepresentation by the defendant. Rihanna used the same argument as Kim Kardashian in the Missguided case, stating that the use of her photo by Topshop was a form of misrepresentation. This was due to her having collaborated with Topshop on earlier occasions. Moreover, what made her argument stronger is the fact that the demographic of her fans were more or less the same as Topshop’s consumer base, meaning that there was a greater chance her goodwill would be affected as a result of misrepresentation, not just as a music artist but also as a style leader.¹⁹

Lastly, the claimant must demonstrate the they have suffered or may suffer damage as a result of the misrepresentation. By seeing a picture of Rihanna on a t-shirt, customers may believe that she endorsed it and if they are dissatisfied with the product, that may damage her goodwill, and potential sales of her own merchandise.

There are cases where the production and sales of knockoffs can be contested. However, given the minute amount of protection conferred upon fashion designs, such cases can only be feasible for huge design labels or celebrities who have successfully set up themselves as a brand. The law is not helpful to designers that are just starting out as their designs are not protected and they do not already have a customer base that could be misled. While such designers may have a valid case, the legal fees may put them off from pursuing any action. For example, Zara copied Tuesday Bassen’s designs and sold them as their own. Bassen stated that simply sending a letter to Zara cost her over $2,000 in legal fees.²⁰ Zara responded to her stating “We reject your claims here for reasons similar to those stated above: the lack of distinctiveness of your client’s purported designs makes it very hard to see how a significant part of the population anywhere in the world would associate the signs with Tuesday Bassen”. They stated the number of views their website receives annually, thereby implying that she did not have much power over Zara as a indie artist. In the end, Zara did take the pins off their website however, it was due to public pressure.

Sometimes, when fashion brands plagiarise another designer’s products, they get called out for it. For example, Diet Prada is an Instagram account that calls out copyists that try to pass off other people’s designs as their own, without crediting them at all. In most cases, when a brand faces consequences for copying, it is a result of customers speaking out against it, rather than the possibility of the brand facing legal action.

Celebrities Collaborating with Fast Fashion Brands

In contrast however, there are celebrities and influencers who collaborate with fast fashion brands and promote knockoff versions of designer outfits that they have previously adorned. An instance of this is Kylie Jenner’s collaboration with FashionNova. FashionNova collaborates with celebrities on certain lines that are “designed” by the celebrities themselves, while simultaneously producing knockoffs of other outfits that these celebrities are spotted in.

FashionNova has capitalised off the popularity of the Kardashian-Jenner family. It uses models that have a similar look to the Kardashians and sell exact copies of their outfits, sometimes within a day of them being spotted in it. There is speculation that is a result of Kim Kardashian working with them. However, FashionNova simply claimed to be an ultra fast fashion website that claims to be able to produce knockoffs of high end products within 24 hours of them hitting the runway²¹. For example, on Kylie Jenner’s 21st birthday FashionNova released a line of knockoffs of the Kardashian-Jenner family’s outfits, hours after they were seen in photographs wearing them²². The brand openly implies that they produce dupes. For example, the aforementioned collection was named the “Birthday Behaviour” collection with the dupe of one of Jenner’s dresses titled “Twenty Fun Satin Dress”.

Due to this, people speculate that the whole family work closely with FashionNova, enabling them to reproduce outfits within such a short timeframe. There may be a possibility of this as FashionNova’s whole brand is mainly based off capitalising the trends that the Kardashians set. They even employ models that have a look similar to those of the Kardashian sisters. However, Kim Kardashian has often shared her disapproval of such brands and has denied working with them at all.

While some celebrities openly share their dislike for fast fashion brands that produce knockoffs, some celebrities embrace it and use it to expand their brand.

The Conclusion

Fast fashion is inarguably harmful in terms of its impact on the environment. Fast fashion companies also make use of cheap labour with questionable ethics in order to keep their costs and in turn prices as low as possible. However, fast fashion can be seen as a way of increasing accessibility for consumers in the fashion industry. These brands give people a budget friendly option to express themselves through their outfits. Moreover, going by the piracy paradox, copying can promote innovation and creativity in the fashion industry as designers will continue to create new trends once they have been copied in order to remain the trendsetter. On the other hand, fast fashion can create greater obstacles for young and upcoming designers. Fast fashion brands may be able to copy independent authors’ designs and sell them for a fraction of the price. This forces a designer to compete with cheaper, more widely accessible versions of the designer’s own creations.²³ Consumers that cannot afford designers products are more likely to go for the mass produced, cheaper version of the design. Additionally, consumers may not eve be aware that the design may have been ripped off.

Celebrities and fast fashion are interdependent. Fast fashion retailers collaborate with celebrities due to their selling power. Fan cultures drive opportunities for co-branding. Consumers feel more confident in the authenticity of the brand if promoted by a celebrity. “Working with celebrities creates a more trustworthy look for a brand, especially if the brand isn’t well known”²⁴. An instagram post by a celebrity has greater selling power than a regular ad or a post made by the company itself. An average consumer is more likely to be aware of celebrities and their style rather than haute couture looks that are put out by design houses, as they feel more connected with a celebrity. The consumer generally does not buy these products for their practical, but for their associative value. Having knockoffs of their outfits being created also keeps the celebrities in the public eye. When fast fashion retailers recreate a celebrity’s outfit, it helps them build and/or retain their status as a style icon.

1 Katalin Medvedev, ‘Social Class and Clothing’, Love to Know,

2 Herbert Blumer, ‘Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection’, (1969) The Sociological Quarterly, 10:3, 278

3 Liam O’Connell, ‘Global Apparel Market — Statistics & Facts’, (August 13, 2019) Statista

Margaret E. Wade, ‘The Sartorial Dilemma of Knockoffs: Protecting Moral Rights Without Disturbing the Fashion Dynamic’, (2011), 96 MINN. L. REV., 340

5 Susan Scafidi, ‘Intellectual Property And Fashion Design’, (2006) In Intellectual Property And Information Wealth: Issues And Practices In The Digital Age 117

6 Tiffany F Tse, ‘Coco Way Before Chanel: Protecting Independent Fashion Designers’ Intellectual Property Against Fast-Fashion Retailers’, (2016), Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology 24(2), 405

7 Chavie Lieber, ‘Kim Kardashian’s love-hate relationship with fast fashion, explained’, (February 26, 2019), Vox.com,

8 Express LLC v. Fetish Group, Inc., 424 F.Supp. 2d 965, 1211 (C.D.C.A. 2006)

9 Helena Pike, ‘The Copycat Economy’, (March 14, 2016), The Business of Fashion,

10 Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, ‘The Piracy Paradox’ (2006), Virignia Law Review, page 1719

11 Kal Raustiala and Christopher Sprigman, ‘The Piracy Paradox’ (2006), Virginia Law Review, 1687

12 ‘Ariana Grande Names Ailing Forever 21 in $10 Million Trademark, Copyright Lawsuit’, (September 3, 2019), The Fashion Law,

13–19 [2015] EWCA Civ 3

20 Gabby Bess, ’How Fashion Brands Like Zara Can Get Away with Stealing Artists’ Designs’, (April 2, 2019), Vice,

21 Chavie Lieber, ‘Kim Kardashian’s love-hate relationship with fast fashion, explained’, (February 26, 2019), Vox.com,

22 Krystin Arneson, ‘Fashion Nova Already Knocked Off Looks From Kylie Jenner’s Birthday Party’, (August 11, 2018), Glamour,

23 Katherine B Felice, ‘Fashioning a Solution for Design Piracy: Considering
Intellectual Property Law in the Global Context of Fast Fashion’ (2011) 39 Syracuse J Int’l L & Com 229