Hotties undies stoush tip of the iceberg

A SMALL lingerie company has just won a long fight with Bonds over their “Hottie” range of undies. Wins like this don’t happen very often.

Iggy Azalea modelling the Bonds ‘Hottie’ range.

A FIERY legal stoush between Bonds and a Brisbane lingerie brand over the use of the word “hottie” has been settled out of court.

In October last year, Easton Corporation Pty Ltd, which owns sexy online lingerie brand Hottie, launched legal proceedings against Bonds manufacturer Pacific Brands claiming it breached trademark when it named several Bonds underwear styles “Hottie”.

The company, known for its racy garments and online images, also sued the retailers who sold the Bonds “Hottie” range including Myer, David Jones, Target, Woolworths, Best & Less, Harris Scarfe and Surfstitch.

In documents filed with the Federal Court, Easton Corp claimed Pacific Brands infringed on its trademark by selling underwear with “substantially identical” words, and that it has suffered loss and damages as a result.

While the settlement — of which the details remain confidential — might appear to be a residing victory for Hottie and for small Australian businesses generally, it is far from it.

Iggy Azalea Bond celebrates 100th anniversary

The original Hottie undies.

Sure, Hottie probably received enough to cover its legal costs with a little bit of change to spare, but the financial impact on Pacific Brands would have been minimal.

In February, the company reported a half-year net profit of $24.3 million. And just last week, US clothing giant HanesBrands, the owner of Wonderbra and Hanes Beefy Ts, made a $1.1 billion takeover bid for the company which also sells Sheridan and Berlei.

Certainly, in the current era of fast fashion where allegations of copycat designing in the fashion industry is rife, these kinds of settlements are hardly a deterrent for multimillion-dollar clothing manufacturers and retailers.

Last year, news.com.au reported several alleged cases of high profile Australian retailers, including Cotton On and Target, copying the designs of small Australian businesses.

While many of the small designers appeared to have incredibly strong cases for compensation, few of them indicated they would be taking legal action. The bottom line is, it costs a lot of money to litigate. More money than most small businesses can afford.

Last year, Target paid independent Melbourne label, Peaches and Keen, $5000 to settle claims it was selling children’s garments that closely resembled its designs — an amount that would have hardly hurt the retail giant’s hip pocket and barely covered the immediate and long-term damage to the fledgling brand.

It is understood the two co-founders initially considered taking legal action but were told it would be too costly and instead contacted Target directly. They were initially offered just $2000 or $3000, according to reports.

Other small businesses that find themselves in similar situations say they simply don’t have the “time or energy”, let alone the money, to defend their intellectual property.

When I recently contacted the owner of another small Melbourne-based business that had engaged a lawyer earlier this year over alleged copyright infringement by a large Australian clothing retailer, she advised me they didn’t have “the time or energy to spend on it so we have let it go.”

“Probably not the smartest move,” she continued.

As the founder of Hottie and Easton Corp, Sirie Palmos said, “Litigation is very stressful and places strain on all resources of a privately-owned company. We are pleased to put this episode behind us, and with our trademark reaffirmed.”

Hottie lingerie are happy to put this episode behind them and go back to making undies.

On its website, PACIFIC B®ANDS proudly states: “The use of the ® (registered trademark symbol) in our brand mark is significant. First and foremost it signifies that we create and market registered trademarks that have been made and protected for their uniqueness and quality.

“It also says that what we do matters; that we are not in the business of merely rag trading — but rather in creating things that are worth protecting and that have real value.”

I would argue that every day hundreds and thousands of Australian small businesses are also “creating things that are worth protecting”, only, unlike Pacific Brands, they rarely have the financial resources to do so.

Follow Rachel Wells on Twitter @rachwells