While Counterfeit Chic won't quibble with the conclusion that requiring workers to pay for hideous hats and horrible polyester shorts adds insult to injury, it is nevertheless usually legal.  Under the federal regulations implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers may require employees to bear the cost of mandatory uniforms.  The only legal limit on this policy is the requirement that paying for the uniform cannot effectively drive the employee's pay below the minimum wage. 

In practice, this means that minimum wage employees cannot be forced to pay for items of clothing that they can't wear elsewhere, but other workers can be.  And all employees -- minimum wage or not -- can be required to provide their own clothing if the required items of apparel can be worn outside of work, as in the case of a restaurant server told to wear a white shirt and black trousers. 

Income tax law is consistent with employment law in this regard.  While an employee who pays for his or her own clothing may not deduct the cost of work clothes that (s)he could theoretically wear elsewhere, like a business suit, (s)he may deduct the amount paid for an article of clothing that is required or essential for work, is not suitable for personal wear, and is not in fact worn apart from work.  So go ahead and deduct the cost of that lab coat or giant team mascot head, but not your rain boots or long underwear -- as one taxpayer learned to his dismay. 

Having established that the Ethicist is mistaken with regard to law (despite quoting a lawyer), I should probably stop now and refrain from commenting on the ethics of the issue.  But who can resist a debate about fairness?

Is it really so awful to for a company to insist that employees pay for their own apparel just because they can only wear those particular items to work?  Admittedly, buying corporate logo gear may not be high on the list for that first paycheck, but many of us have clothes in our closets that are in practice for work only.  How many ties would the average man own if he didn't have to wear them to the office?  And yet he had to pay for all of them himself -- and can't even deduct the cost of these symbolic nooses. 

So while my sartorial sympathy goes out to J.M. in Arizona and anyone else whose employer requires a uniform that the employees don't want to wear, much less buy, the practice is ultimately neither illegal nor unethical.  

CFDA President and designer extraordinaire Diane von Furstenberg was "horrified" to learn this morning that her "Zaria" jacket for spring 2009 (right) bears a strong resemblance to a spring 2008 look from the indie Canadian label Mercy (left) -- and she lost no time in taking action.

Diane, who has suffered at the hands of career copyists herself and has been a determined proponent of U.S. legislation to extend intellectual property protection to fashion designs, immediately sought to get all of the facts and to reach out to the Mercy duo of Jennifer Halchuk and Richard Lyle.  Although there is no copyright violation in this case -- the DVF fabric pattern and the Mercy floral, both of which are subject to protection, are quite different -- Diane nevertheless intends to voluntarily compensate the Canadian designers for the unauthorized use of their work.  No doubt she'll also be having a conversation with the 15+ members of her design team about the difference between inspiration and imitation.

"I am devastated," Diane told Counterfeit Chic, "but this can be a lesson for everyone." 

Score one for corporate ethics -- not an oxymoron after all.

Many thanks to fabulous fashion illustrator Danielle Meder, who was the first to send a tip!

For a discussion of the earlier case -- and its cultural subtext -- click here.  

Today Narciso Rodriguez, Jason Wu, Maria Cornejo, and Thakoon Panichgul spent the day on Capitol Hill with CFDA executive director Steven Kolb, promoting the new and improved Design Piracy Prohibition Act.  As in earlier incarnations, the legislation calls for amending the Copyright Act to provide 3 years of protection for registered fashion designs -- a modest request compared to the 25 years of design protection available throughout Europe or the 10 years available in countries including Japan and India.  Or the life plus 70 years granted to creators working in copyrightable media.

For Michelle's designers, the recognition associated with dressing such a fashion-forward First Lady is a tremendous honor -- but publicity alone doesn't pay the bills, especially in the current economic climate.  Jason Wu, for example, doesn't get a penny from the sale of still-legal knockoffs of the gown seen 'round the world (below).  And while the automobile industry and the banking industry can go hat in hand to Washington, the likelihood of a bailout for the fashion industry is smaller than a size zero. 

So here's wishing Seventh Avenue's ambassadors good luck in the land of navy blue blazers and khakis!  Hopefully President Obama, whose own all-American suitmaker was recently forced to declare bankruptcy, will have the opportunity to add his own stylish signature to the bill soon.

Photos: Darrell G. Mottley, Esq. and USA Today

UPDATE:  Many of you have asked for the updated text of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.  Unfortunately, I cannot distribute the draft, but I will provide a link as soon as its introduction becomes official. 

Celeste Greenberg, who now designs the jewelry line Tuleste Market, claims that the design came from a vintage pendant that she sourced for Bensimon.  The two allegedly made a verbal agreement to manufacture replicas of the owl and split the profits.  Bensimon, who has produced and sold both pendants (below) and clothing (left) bearing an owl design, denies that that there was any such deal. 

The real legal issue, however, may be the provenance of the original pendant.  Since jewelry is subject to copyright protection under U.S. law, the initial owl design could belong to someone else entirely, depending on its age and whether it was registered.  And, given the potential for publicity-generated profits, the original designer may very well give a hoot.

The "aha!"  moment, or at least an educated guess, came when I saw this sign set up near St. Paul's Cathedral.  Apparently it's not that the U.K. has managed to end all sales of fake DVDs and watches, but has more or less stopped overt street trading altogether. 

Now I wish I'd taken a closer look at the ice cream truck (decorated with presumably unauthorized Disney characters) doing a brisk business not too far away.  Who knew that there was an illicit trade in vanilla soft serve? 

Confused?  Check out this scene from the Doctor Who Easter special, "Planet of the Dead."  

Still confused?  Then you're clearly not a fan of the hugely popular and long-running British sci-fi series Doctor Who, which involves an attractive and altruistic but ultimately lonely alien (currently David Tennant) who saves the human race.  Often.  With a sonic screwdriver.  

Um...maybe you need to see it for yourself. But trust me, it's worth it -- and I'm only an honorary geek.

Many thanks to extremely warm and friendly members of LOTNA, who kindly allowed a couple of visiting Yanks to join them at a London pub to watch the show.  One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. 

Related post:  European Theatre of Operations:  Everyone v. eBay.

Intrigued?  Drop by Fordham Law School's main lobby to check out the coolest law library showcase ever, courtesy of Professor and Law Library Director Bob Nissenbaum and Reference Librarian Janice Greer.  (And OK, an idea or two from your favorite law prof.) 

But hurry -- this window into Law and the LBD will only be on display until April 15. 

Abercrombie & Fitch, it turns out -- at least if an employee's hair color of choice does not comport with the retail chain's "look policy."  And, alleges a lawsuit pending in the Southern District of New York, the only acceptable hair colors of choice for African Americans at A&F are dark brown or black. 

Former sales associate Dulazia Burchette claims that she was twice sent home to re-dye blonde highlights to a color she was "born with" before finally leaving A&F.  According to the complaint, at least one other African American employee with nonconforming hair color was fired, another was allowed to work only in the stockroom until such time as she could dye her hair, and a third chose to wear a black wig.  Caucasian employees' hair color and highlights were allegedly not subject to similar scrutiny. 

While Judge Richard Berman last week dismissed several of Burchette's arguments, she was allowed to proceed with the primary claims regarding racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. 

And so the battle over African American women's hair -- from Renee Rogers' 1981 action demanding that American Airlines allow her to wear braids to the Cleary Gottlieb law firm's bad hair day a couple of summers ago, courtesy of Glamour magazine -- continues.  And it's a good bet that neither Tina Turner nor Tyra will be doing a line for A&F any time soon.

Via WWD.  

Really?  Harvey Weinstein?

But improbably polite press releases aside, it's nice to know that the competitors who braved sleepless nights of constructing couture garments from industrial waste and dryer lint -- while inspiring record numbers of starry-eyed students to apply to design school -- will have their season in the sun.

While Michelle Obama initially objected to use of her daughters' names by Beanie Babies maker Ty, Inc., and White House lawyers have been exploring ways of quietly calling a halt to appropriation of the President's campaign slogans to sell everything from ice cream to furniture, Mrs. O has now decided to stop fighting the public fascination with the First Family and instead channel that consumer behavior for the public good.  The result will be hundreds of official Obama products, including many that take advantage of Michelle's status as a global fashion icon.  Fans of her style will be able to buy everything from a book of paper dolls tentatively entitled, Michelle Obama: The First Hundred Outfits, to reproductions of her most popular ensembles under her own "Right to Bare Arms" label, manufactured in cooperation with J.Crew.  (No unauthorized knockoffs, though -- Counterfeit Chic is pleased to learn that the First Lady is currently negotiating with Narciso Rodriguez, Maria Cornejo, Isabel Toledo, and Jason Wu, among others, to pay licensing fees for their original designs.)

Of course, the President's own endorsement is also a huge selling point for branded merchandise, including clothing.  He's said to be particularly excited about collaborating with Nike on a basketball shoe, and will personally oversee the design of a line of ties to be sold exclusively in the White House gift shop. 

Even the images of the First Daughters will become part of the effort, as their likenesses have been licensed to MGA Entertainment Inc. to create Sasha and Malia Bratz dolls.  The move is expected to save MGA from potentially having to declare bankruptcy after losing a court battle to Mattel, maker of Barbie, late last year.  When asked about the deal, Michelle noted that "Sasha and Malia made the final decision, and they are thrilled with the prototypes."  And their mom-in-chief?  "Well, they certainly are brats sometimes," she admitted with a big smile. 

The best part of Michelle's plan is that as long as Barak remains in office, all proceeds from the sale of these official First Family products will be donated directly to the federal government.  So not only will the made-in-USA merchandise stimulate shopping among otherwise wary consumers here and abroad, but the proceeds will directly alleviate the rapidly mounting national debt.

Reaction to Michelle's idea from previous American first ladies and from her foreign counterparts has ranged from enthusiastic to envious.  Nancy Reagan has already offered to help Michelle design a set of tarot cards, and Barbara Bush has offered to introduce Michelle to costume jeweler extraordinaire Kenneth Jay Lane.  French President Nicolas Sarkozy is reportedly furious that his wife, former model Carla Bruni, didn't come up with the idea first.  Sarko told reporters, "My wife is smart and tall, too!  And many men would buy shoes with heels like mine." 

Although only sales of official First Family merchandise with hologram hangtags and watermarks incorporating the Presidential seal will result in funds channeled directly to the U.S. Treasury, the Obamas have no plans to challenge ongoing private sales of T-shirts and other memorabilia bearing the President's image.  "We're glad that many Americans are proud of their country for the first time and are wearing that sentiment on their T-shirts," said Michelle.  "And Shep Fairey isn't going to pay up anyway."  A senior official added that White House lawyers are having some difficulty reconciling the First Amendment right to free speech with the Obamas' rights of publicity as private citizens.  In addition, suing small, independent vendors would be a politically unpopular move. 

First-year projected revenues are approximately $700 billion.

To pre-order First Family merchandise and make suggestions for additional products you'd like to see developed, text Michelle or visit her website below. 

...but from a copyright infringement perspective, Counterfeit Chic is unconvinced.  The styles are similar, but none of the actual drawings appear to be repeated.  Moreover, the Topshop tote adds garments, cupcakes, and even a horse's head to the mix.  Perhaps they both came from the same artist, or perhaps the ur-text was the junior-high spiral notebook of a budding caricaturist. 

Either way, Topshop would probably come out on top in the event of a challenge. 

On a recent episode of the Style Network's Running in Heels, one of the featured interns gets a chance to find out, courtesy of questions from her editors at Marie Claire.  

Cavalli's dislike of being copied by "big designers" follows a typical pattern of response.  As in all creative media, from fiction to architecture, some artists are "inspired" by others.  When this search for inspiration crosses a certain line, however, noses get out of joint and the reputation of the copyist suffers -- whether or not the law in a particular jurisdiction has any say in the matter.  Watch out for copying that is (1) too literal, (2) too close in time to the original, or (3) in too similar a market niche. 

Hence Cavalli's reaction to alleged copying by other famous fashion designers.  The more-is-more master of mixed jungle patterns and baroque jewelry can fend off lesser lights (to some extent) via the power of his label, but peer-on-peer pilfering is a more direct threat.  Especially since Roberto is in the process of expanding his more accessible Just Cavalli line. 

So, why wouldn't Cavalli name names?  Or at least whisper in the ears of the lovely ladies from the magazine with the long-established "Splurge or Steal" feature?  After all, social censure only works when the culprits are identified.

Cavalli's uncharacteristic coyness may have resulted from the fact that all of the parties in the room -- with the possible exception of the intern -- could already guess the prime suspects.  And presumably the more fashion-savvy viewers at home immediately started guessing.  At times, inuendo can be far more powerful than direct accusation.  

In other words, why start an on-camera cat fight over leopard print when you can achieve the same effect with a catty suggestion?

Knock-off bags, if worn seriously, are not chic.  Furthermore, a bag needs to perform, and knock-offs are not made with durability in mind.  

Thanks to Tim for the advice -- and the desk calendar!