Did Alcott really plagiarize Denim Tears?

As exclusively reported by The Fashion Law a few days ago, New York-based brand Denim Tears, founded by Tremaine Emory and recently established as one of the most prominent pillars of streetwear alongside Stüssy and Supreme (where Emory served as creative director until he accused his employers of racism), has initiated legal action against the Italian company Capri S.r.l., owner of the Alcott brand, accusing it of trademark infringement – in other words, plagiarism. The proceedings were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 14, 2025, and at the center of the dispute is one of the most recognizable visual elements of Denim Tears: the cotton wreath, registered as a trademark in the United States. In the formal complaint, Denim Tears accuses Capri S.r.l. and consequently Alcott of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition. According to the documents filed in court, Alcott has marketed a clothing line featuring a graphic design extremely similar to the cotton wreath that characterizes Denim Tears’ products. This resemblance, the American brand argues, is not accidental but the result of a deliberate strategy aimed at leveraging the brand recognition and appreciation Denim Tears enjoys in both the U.S. and European markets.

As stated on The Fashion Law, the company has over time acquired a “strong reputation and goodwill” among the public, built through a distinct brand narrative and high-profile collaborations, such as those with Ugg, Dior, ASICS, Converse, Champion, and Stüssy. What makes the situation even more serious, according to Denim Tears, is that the cotton wreath is not only a distinctive symbol that consumers now associate with Emory’s design language, but also a key element of the brand's ethos. That ethos aims to reclaim and celebrate African-American culture, and had turned that symbol into a powerful historical statement — transforming a reference to the dark times of slavery in the U.S. into a sign of resilience. This deep cultural and semantic significance, according to Emory, has been degraded by the alleged plagiarism, sparking his ire. In the complaint, Denim Tears states that Alcott’s actions not only damage its reputation, but also mislead consumers into wrongly believing that the counterfeit products are authentic or, even worse, the result of an official collaboration between the two brands. This risk, according to Denim Tears’ legal team, is amplified by the fact that Alcott is known for ongoing collaborations with other mainstream brands, such as Puma and Casio, making the idea of a legitimate partnership seem plausible to the average buyer. Users (including Italians) have even mocked the situation on TikTok — naturally siding with Denim Tears.

Another key point highlighted in the lawsuit, and emphasized by The Fashion Law, is the price differential between original Denim Tears garments and Alcott’s products. The garments accused of infringement are sold at drastically lower prices, creating a dumping effect that, according to Denim Tears, distorts consumer perception of value and could cause long-term damage to the brand’s image. As the publication explains, the perceived intent is not only to confuse the public, but also to gain a competitive advantage by cutting costs at the expense of another brand’s identity. For this reason, Denim Tears has asked the court for an immediate injunction to prevent Alcott from continuing to sell the disputed products, the recall and destruction of all currently distributed items bearing the contested motif, monetary compensation including profits obtained by Alcott through the alleged infringement, and of course the reimbursement of legal fees, in addition to punitive damages if the court finds the infringement to have been willful.

At present, Capri S.r.l. has not issued any public statements nor has it formally responded in court. Nonetheless, the news has already generated significant buzz on social media and among the general public, with many fashion insiders, both Italian and American, not only condemning the blatant copying but also describing this case as yet another example of the growing tension between small independent brands and global fast fashion giants. These larger companies are increasingly known for copying commercially successful designs and moving so quickly that plagiarized goods often reach the market before the original creators can respond. The case is expected to shed light on crucial questions: how similar can one product be to another without infringing a trademark? How much does the cultural context of a symbol matter in determining plagiarism? The U.S. court’s answers to these questions could significantly influence the future of independent design and the practices of global fashion companies.