Behold, Coldwater Creek's smoking shoe

Maybe you already knew this Brightonistas, but it was news to me: In December a U.S. District Court jury in San Diego told Coldwater Creek to pay Brighton $6.7 million for it willful violation of Brighton's intellectual property rights. Specifically, Coldwater Creek was accused of copying the Brighton heart trademark and copying Brighton's look. Coldwater Creek said it was not guilty and planned to appeal. I hadn't learned of the lawsuit until today when I came across the news online, but it was no secret to me that Coldwater Creek was producing Brighton knock-offs. Just take a look at these shoes: The one on the left is a pre-owned Brighton shoe I purchased on ebay and the one on the right was purchased from Coldwater Creek's website. I admit it! I bought it specifically because it had the Brighton look, for the same reason I have purchased CWC's handbags. And I can testify that many people mistook my CWC items for Brighton. (Your compulsively honest blogger corrected them, but also told them where to get the look-alikes.) I had always wondered why Brighton allowed this blatant rip-off of its look. But apparently, it was Coldwater Creek that sued first in 2006, alleging injury of its reputation after a Brighton dealer in Beverly Hills wrote a letter to Coldwater Creek accusing them of producing cheap knock-offs. I can guess why Brighton didn't sue first: Coldwater Creek is the Goliath in this dispute, with $1.024 billion in sales last year, according to its SEC filings. Brighton is privately held so its exact sales numbers aren't reported to the SEC, but company officials said sales were about $300 million last year. Now that I know all this I feel pretty guilty for buying the CWC knock-offs. And as one of Coldwater Creek's better customers (I'm designated a "One Creek" customer) I am pretty disappointed in the them for not admitting the obvious. Message to CWC: You do so many things right, you don't need to copy Brighton.