Zatchels' Response to Settlement with Cambridge Satchel Company

After our previous post on the Cambridge Satchel settlement in the infringement suit against Zatchels, Zatchels directly reached out to The Fashion Grid to clarify their position with the following statement:

"Whilst we strongly consider the claim to be speculative and unfounded, with all of the costs and unpleasantness involved with a high court action, we have decided to settle the claim with a payment. This is to avoid a protracted and long drawn out litigation so that we are able to concentrate on our business, which continues to flourish. The designs we have been offering over the last few months will continue to be offered and are not affected by this settlement. It is not in any way relevant to our current trading position. The commercial reality of this type of litigation means it was more attractive to settle with a payment, than to continue to argue, which will serve to detract us as the directors from continuing to grow and support our very successful business.

There are no winners or losers in this case and that’s why it was settled at mediation over three months ago, and not in the High Court. We are very surprised that Cambridge Satchel have decided to release this statement now some months on, we believe this is purely for the brands own personal promotional gain. There are many manufactures in the UK of the traditional satchel all use the same original patterns that have been around for decades including Cambridge Satchel.  Zatchels parent Company have been manufacturing with the same staff for many years and always made leather products and it is these skills that have been applied to making not only satchels but other products that Zatchels offer, and will continue to introduce in the future.

We are sufficiently satisfied with this outcome and now with this behind us we look forward to a long and successful future with Zatchels."

Cambridge Satchel (left) vs. Zatchels (right) 

This was after Julie Deane released the following statement to the The Fashion Law:

"I think there are two points here that are important - one: to imitate a design, product or both shows a lack of originality and should never be supported. The second point is even more despicable, and that is that Leicester Remedials & Sewing (aka Zatchels) was a new manufacturer of ours, a business we were giving work to and training to make the bags. The relationship between designer and manufacturer is built on trust, discussing ideas, designs, customers. To have a manufacturer betray a customer in such an underhand and outright way is worse than mere imitation, it is betrayal. Having said that, it gave me the push to set up Cambridge Satchel's own manufacturing unit, and that has gone from strength to strength, creating jobs and expanding the UK manufacturing base. That is not to say we no longer use the original five manufacturers. We do, as we have ethics and support those who have supported us."

It is true that in any legal dispute, a settlement is not an admission of guilt or liability to the claims made nor should it be considered a victory or a loss for the parties involved. Furthermore, there is one absolute that exists in any legal dispute- there are always two sides to every lawsuit.

Objectively speaking, any manufacturer that takes the designs of one of its customers and produces a similar product line is liable for infringement and breach of contract. Designers must make sure that the terms of any agreement entered into with any manufacturer include confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses that protect the designer's ownership of any intellectual property. While we may never know the exact details of this particular case, there is always a lesson to take from any legal dispute, no matter who was in the wrong.