Skip to main content

$3 Million Lawsuit Alleges Zara Copied Amiri’s Men’s Biker Jeans

A style of Zara skinny biker jeans has come under scrutiny for its similarities to a popular luxury brand’s design.

On Wednesday, Atelier Luxury Group, LLC, owner and creator of the luxury denim brand Amiri, filed a lawsuit against Zara over allegations that the fast-fashion brand copied Amiri’s now-famous MX2 jeans worn by celebrities and influencers alike. The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $3 million for injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and more.

The lawsuit alleges that Zara never approached Atelier for a license or any other permission to use its design. Its claims against Zara include federal trade dress infringement, federal trade dress dilution, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin, California trade dress dilution and California unfair competition.

Both brands’ styles feature a skinny fit with pleated leather paneling above the knee, with zippers at the knee and along the outer thigh. Jeans are available in both gray and light blue denim washes, with significant distressing and fading throughout. Zara’s jean sold for $50, while Amiri’s retails for $1,150 and more.

“Zara’s conduct cannot go unchecked. It’s a blatant violation of law for the company to copy our client’s designs,” said lead counsel A. Sasha Frid, who, along with a team of lawyers at Miller Barondess, LLP, is representing the plaintiff. “Atelier invested a great deal of time, resources and skill to develop its product line. We will hold Zara accountable and look forward to our day in court.”

Zara has come under fire for similar allegations in the past. In April 2019, Zara was sued by streetwear clothing brand Rebel8 for trademark infringement and unfair competition over a pair of women’s shorts that featured a design similar to the brand’s diamond logo.

Earlier, in May 2015, Zara was sued by clothing and footwear company Seychelles Imports, LLC, for trademark and trade dress infringement, false advertising and unfair business practices over apparel and footwear featuring a similar logo. Both cases were eventually dismissed.