Australian Business Accused of Plagiarizing a Whole Store

On this site, I’ve discussed a wide variety of plagiarism. I’ve discussed poetry, photography, movies, music, video games, knitting, architecture and even flags. As I said in 2019, anywhere there is creativity, there is plagiarism.

However, a story out of Australia proves that, despite 18 years of history, this site still hasn’t covered everything.

In an upscale Sydney neighborhood, two lifestyle stores are trading barbs over allegations of copying and plagiarism. While dismissing this as a simple trademark dispute would be easy, the allegations of copying go well beyond similar branding.

The accusation isn’t simply that the other store created a similar brand. They are accused of copying the entire store, down to the furniture. All of it to create a new store that is approximately a 500-meter (0.3 mile) walk away.

It’s worth examining the allegations and responses to understand what is happening.

Hands vs. Sharing

Hands is a self-described lifestyle store in the Newtown neighborhood of Sydney. According to its Instagram, it has been open since March 2022 and has amassed nearly 15,000 followers on the site. It is also planning an expansion to a second store in the Paddington neighborhood.

Last week, they shared a post highlighting a nearby store named Sharing. In the post, they accused sharing of stealing their aesthetic, design, branding and other elements, creating a near copy of the store.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hands Lifestyle Store (@handsshopau)

The allegations began with the similar branding of the stores. Both stores use a green and cream color palette and have similarly arranged logos.

However, the comparisons became truly bizarre inside the store. There, Hands accused sharing of using a similar display stand in the window, nearly identical wavy tables, and even the same Ikea shelves.

They also accused Sharing of using a nearly identical A-frame sign outside, the same baskets for displaying artwork, and even carrying some of the same merchandise, or at least imitations of it.

Finally, Hands noted that Sharing even organized its site the same way, with the list of Home Decor items not only containing the same items but also in identical order.

Sharing hit back on Instagram, first accusing Hands of copying their name from a Japanese chain with the same name. However, that chain has no presence in Australia and didn’t rebrand as Hands until late 2022, after the Australian store was open.

Sharing also claimed that the store was not even officially open, and photographs of the store highlighted a pink aesthetic. However, Sharing’s own Instagram account undermines those claims. They posted a reel showing customers shopping in the store, and it even featured the wavy tables and identical shelves.

Though this could be a soft open, it’s clear that Sharing is much closer to finished than its post would like to claim.

Furthermore, the logos on the Sharing account show the green logo, indicating that they are using, at least in places, the green color scheme.

In short, the arguments Sharing made don’t seem to carry much weight. However, they claim they are being bullied over the issue, telling one reporter that they have lost sleep over the online backlash.

Still, the evidence of copying is pretty strong. However, that doesn’t mean that what they did is illegal.

But Is it Illegal?

The similarities between the stories are difficult to ignore and even more difficult to pass off as coincidence.

Declan Bowring, a reporter at ABC Radio Sydney, interviewed two experts, a professor of law and a lawyer, about the case. Both experts agreed that there is no likely trademark issue. Instead, they felt this is covered under the concept of passing off, where one misrepresents their goods or services as coming from another to exploit the other business’ goodwill.

However, both felt it would be difficult for such a case to get off the ground. One felt it would be impossible, while the other noted that most cases usually fail. However, they also felt that if Hands could prove goodwill existed, there might be an action.

But litigation seems highly unlikely even if there is a cause for action. These are two small stores, and given the cost and risk of litigation, it’s unlikely to be worthwhile. Even if Hands can win, it’s unlikely they can collect adequate damages or benefits to cover the costs.

In short, this dispute will likely not be hashed out in court. Instead, it will play out in the court of public opinion, both on social media and local news, where it has been for the past week.

But this begs a simple question: Did Sharing copy Hands? The answer, almost certainly, is yes.

Why I Believe Sharing Copied Hands

In a bizarre twist, I actually have some recent experience in this space. In November 2022, I assisted one of my girlfriends in opening her then-new yarn store, YarNOLA. Though the project was and is very much hers, I was present and involved in the entire process.

Part of that process was visiting a lot of other yarn stores. We visited at least a dozen across six different states. Though they all had some similarities, none felt like they were the same or even very similar to any of the other stores. That’s also true for my girlfriend’s store, which has a different feel from the others we visited.

That wasn’t an accident. An incredible amount of thought went into every detail of the store. Major things such as the store’s name, the colors, the logo and the suppliers were given care and were largely determined far in advance. Other decisions, such as which shelves to use and where to open the store, were more driven by economic and practical concerns.

What resulted was a mashup of carefully planned decisions mixed with decisions largely forced upon us either through amazing opportunity or an unfortunate requirement. In that regard, setting up a store is no different than any other creative work. Such work is always a combination of deliberate intentions and working within limitations.

As such, I could have easily dismissed one or two similarities as coincidence. Having the same shelves or similar items isn’t necessarily a sign of copying. But when you consider the similarities in the aggregate, they become impossible to ignore.

It’s virtually impossible for these two stores to be this similar without Sharing’s owner making conscious decisions to create a similar storefront. At some point, coincidence and limitations cease to explain the similarities.

That is true here.

Bottom Line

Given that Sharing almost certainly copied elements from Hands, the question I have becomes why?

What does Sharing gain by being so similar and so close to Hands? Such a move seems like it would harm both stores rather than help the newcomer. Though some commenters did say that they bought things from the new store because of the confusion, it doesn’t seem like that confusion would last long.

There may be enough market in that neighborhood for two lifestyle stores, but not two nearly identical stores.

However, that lack of benefit may be why this type of plagiarism is so rare. Setting up a store is a creative process. As I said earlier, where there is creativity, there is plagiarism. But here, the plagiarist doesn’t get an obvious benefit. They may save time and creativity, but they are stuck competing with an established store without a clearly distinguished storefront.

Still, the ethics of plagiarism don’t overlap neatly with the law in this area. There’s no clear legal action here, even though it is pretty clear that copying took place.

The market will ultimately decide this, though it seems Hands has a significant head start.