By Chinazam Ikechi-Uko.
American fashion designer, Tommy Hilfiger, whose portfolio includes a Tems collaboration once said, “New York Fashion Week comes only twice a year, make it count.” In 2022, Nigerian designer Desirée Iyama embodied that statement when she unveiled her SS23 collection at Lagos Fashion Week.
The collection titled ‘WHY NOT NOW?’ was met with rave reviews and has gone on to become one of the brand’s most influential drops. Its Meraki dress has remained a go-to it-girl dress for two years. In fashion, popularity often comes with a rise in counterfeits. However, fashion design is an art so before yelling copycat, one has to prove that the design is unique for valid intellectual theft claims.
Desirée Iyama was faced with this challenge on the 9th of August 2024 after she quoted another X(Twitter) user. When an X user by the name, Marvey of Marvey-R, posted a video wearing a violet replica of the Meraki dress she made with the caption, “I looked so good the other night 😍I made my dress. Inspired by Desiree Iyama.” She was met with a rebuttal by the designer who stated, “Nothing about this is an inspiration. It is an outright copy.”
Marvey who is an emerging designer followed up her post by clarifying her intentions. “I only recreated this dress for myself, I have no intention of making it for others. Visit https://desireeiyama.com and patronize the owner of the design.” But it was too late, the masses had drawn out their pitchforks and began burning, Iyama– the designer.
THE SCANDAL:
In less than three days, Desirée Iyama’s tweet had two million views with over 900 quotes. The majority consensus was that Iyama’s response was rather harsh considering she was credited. With many calling her bitter and mean-spirited. Iyama explained in another tweet. “Clarifying the difference: Inspiration sparks new ideas while copying duplicates existing work. I appreciate genuine inspiration, but duplicating my design without permission isn’t inspiration – it’s copyright infringement. Let’s respect creators’ rights!”
This did nothing to dissuade the audience’s verdict. Iyama was wrong and is a wicked woman trying to ruin another woman’s moment. The tales of misogyny write themselves with the top comment being, “Lmfaoo. Nothing can satisfy humans sha. Not too long ago people were crying on here to give credit. This woman gave you credit you are still not satisfied. Always the female gender!!!!”
Iyama’s outburst is primarily seen as emotional and extreme because her claims her deemed irrational. But is her claim as absurd and unjust as it is painted to be or is there a sensitive and more complex topic being overlooked?
TO ERR IS HUMAN BUT TO FORGIVE IS UNPROFITABLE:
In January of 2023, after an eight-day trial in New York City, a federal jury awarded a modern luxury house a win against a household sports brand. Thom Browne was not found guilty of trademark infringement or dilution as Adidas claimed.
It all began in 2018 when Thom Browne filed in the European Union for a four-striped mark trademark. By June 2021, Adidas filed a trademark infringement and dilution against Thom Browne. “The German sportswear giant – which has been using a 3-stripe logo since the 1950s and is notoriously litigious when it comes to others’ use of lookalike marks – alleged that New York-based Browne was engaging in “direct competition with [it] by offering sportswear and athletic-styled footwear that bears confusingly similar imitations” of its three stripes.” The Fashion Law, a site dedicated to giving insights about legal battles in the industry, explained.
The Fashion Law chooses to use the phrase notoriously litigious to describe Adidas because of its well-detailed history of filing infringement cases. While Adidas is notorious for this, infringement cases are extremely popular in the industry. With the Worldwide Trademark battle of the red soles of Louboutin heels being a fan favourite.
The popularity of these cases is due to designers’ attempts to preserve their art– their intellectual property. Another brand selling one’s designs can result in monetary losses for the initial designer. The victims are often younger brands without enough financial backing to pursue a case. One victim is the Nigerian eponymous brand, Desirée Iyama.
X users will be the first to tell you that they have seen the Meraki dress on several sites and Iyama is not the only brand to make it. Here lies Iyama’s issue, she was the first. It is a dress with a neckline design inspired by the Olympic logo. “In the spirit of the Olympics, here’s the real inspiration to the creation of the Meraki Dress, using the same silhouette I designed and released in 2021. The truth wins in the end.”
Marvey-R’s tweet simply struck a nerve and gained a reaction that had been a long time coming. In her journey to building a successful brand, Iyama has become an easy mark but Marvey-R’s case is different and tricky. She has no intention of selling it so does it count as copyright infringement?
THE VERDICT:
In a discussion with Marvey-R, she reflected on the situation saying, “I was a little bit surprised by the response, but I understand. She’s just someone I look up to as an aspiring designer and I was excited to make the dress for myself for my class dinner. Maybe I should have used a better word, we learn every day.” Marvey-R, who admits she was not aware of the possible effects of her action, has remained supportive of Iyama. “I would never do anything like that to her brand. Next time I’ll choose better words and do better. But it was never my intention to downplay her craft.”
“There are so many things involved in this; there is the issue of passing off and copyright. Desirée Iyama can not sue for passing off because the girl [Marvey-R] has explicitly stated that she is not selling the dress.” Sockboy*, 20, a final year law student of Afe Babalola University explains. “Copyright is automatic, as soon as you create a work, you automatically have the right to that work, even if you did not file for anything, anyone that infringes on that work can be a complaint. Copyright primarily protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. If the idea is expressed differently, it is not an issue.”
So while there is no legal case, Iyama is right about the dress being a replication and not an inspiration of her work. Regardless, of the internet frenzy, she can express her discomfort.
