Hands and Sharing are two stores located about 500 meters apart on King Street’s busy shopping strip, surrounded by other book and gift shops. The controversy arose when Sharing faced criticism for allegedly copying Hands’ design, including the use of the color green. However, an employee at Sharing defended the store, stating that they had used a different name and many gift shops source products from the same designers. Despite claiming not to have been aware of Hands before opening their store, Sharing expressed willingness to make changes to address any unhappiness caused by the situation.
Sharing operates under both a company name and a branding name, which they denied caused confusion for suppliers. Following the backlash, Sharing stated that they were open to making changes if necessary, but also expressed being insulted by the accusations made against them. They described the situation as “very sad” and claimed to be a victim of bullying. Posting a response on their Instagram page, which has 1000 followers, Sharing highlighted differences between their store and Hands, refuting the claims of copying.
On the other hand, Luckman, the owner of Hands, rejected Sharing’s assertions but stated that he would not pursue the matter any further. He explained that his main goal was to ensure that customers were aware that the two stores were not the same business. University of Sydney professor Andrew Terry, an expert in business regulation, intellectual property, and competition law, explained that small businesses have limited legal protection in such cases. He noted that having a registered trademark would provide more grounds for legal action but highlighted that the current situation did not seem to cross the line into misleading or deceptive conduct or passing off.
Overall, the dispute between Hands and Sharing over alleged design similarities highlighted the challenges small businesses face in protecting their brand. While Sharing denied copying Hands and expressed openness to making changes, Hands’ owner chose not to pursue further action and focused on clarifying the distinction between the two stores for customers. Despite the legal limitations for small businesses in these matters, the incident served as a reminder of the importance of maintaining distinct brand identities and addressing any concerns raised by customers or competitors to avoid misunderstandings and negative repercussions.
