A lawsuit filed in the US by independent eyewear retailer Selima Optique which challenged the validity of Kering Eyewear’s ‘Made in Italy’ origin claims has reignited the debate surrounding manufacturing transparency and whether Chinese production has an unfair stigma attached to it.
Filed at a federal court in Manhattan late last month, the suit claimed Kering Eyewear ‘deliberately and falsely represent that their eyeglasses and sunglasses are “Made in Italy”.’
‘In truth, the defendants’ products, or substantially all parts of their products, are made in China, and (at best) shipped to Italy for final assembly and packaging, and then exported,’ said the company in the documents filed with the court.
The papers continued: ‘Wholesale customers and retail consumers, who pay a premium for Italian made products especially those carrying designer labels such as Yves Saint Laurent, are falling victim to a deceitful bait-and-switch scheme by defendants, who are selling eyewear that are actually manufactured in China, while bearing the stamp ‘Made in Italy’.
‘The defendants’ misleading packaging and labelling are exacerbated by an overall marketing campaign, online and in print, that mislead wholesale customers as well as the consuming public to believe that their products are made in Italy.’
Selima Optique said it first noticed a potential manufacturing discrepancy in October 2016, when it received a package of Saint Laurent frames, and noticed one temple of the frame was stamped ‘Made in Italy’ and the other was marked ‘Made in China.’
The company also asked the court to allow a huge class of other plaintiffs, including Kering’s domestic competitors affected by the alleged wrongdoing, to join the lawsuit and share in any monetary settlement.
Kering Eyewear issued a robust denial in response to the allegations and explained how Selima Optique received its incorrect product. ‘All luxury eyewear distributed by Kering Eyewear for luxury brands is manufactured in Italy and, for a small part, in Japan,’ said a company spokesperson.
‘A mistake occurred in the logistics warehouse, situated in the Veneto region of Italy, where Kering Eyewear gathers all eyewear products before delivering them to their clients throughout the world.
‘Our Puma eyewear products, that are mostly made in China receive their ‘Made in’ stamp in this same Italian warehouse, according to the legislation of the country where they are meant to be sold – as some countries do not require a “made in” stamp.
‘By mistake, 21 pieces of Made in Italy luxury eyewear that were already stamped ‘Made in Italy’ also received a ‘Made in China’ stamp that was dedicated to Puma frames. The company immediately apologised for the mistake and offered the clients to exchange these products, and sent all due certificates to customers demonstrating that these products were indeed made in Italy. All customers accepted the exchange except Selima Optique, who had bought one pair of glasses.
‘The company intends to defend its rights firmly in this legal case and reaffirms that luxury products are made in Italy and are labelled in compliance with all applicable laws.’
What the law says
There are two basic concepts in European Commission law to determine the origin of goods, namely ‘wholly obtained’ products and products having undergone a ‘last substantial transformation.’
If only one country is involved the ‘wholly obtained’ concept is applied. In practice this will be restricted to mostly products obtained in their natural state, such as minerals and live animals.
More pertinent to the eyewear manufacturing sector is the principle of ‘last, substantial transformation’ to determine the origin of goods when two or more countries are involved in the production of goods.
Article 24 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 states: ‘Goods whose production involved more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture.’
For eyewear production, this could allow any manufacturer to produce parts and components in one country, assemble in another and then freely claim the product originated where the large stage of production was carried out.
It is a practice that extends beyond eyewear production, however. Last month, a Guardian investigation into Louis Vuitton found that a secret factory in Romania was producing all but the soles of its shoes. The shoes would be ‘finished’ with soles in France and Italy. As noted in the article, Louis Vuitton claims that its Italian footwear workshops embody ‘ancestral savoir-faire’ in a region ‘revered for its fine shoe craftsmanship’.
Transparency
A more open approach to revealing manufacturing locations has been called for by leading figures in independent eyewear, but is such honesty viable when consumers are driven by slogans and brands?
‘There is prestige, in the eyes of the consumer, for luxury brands to be made in certain countries. I guess the temptation, then, is to ascribe yourself to those regions for the associated stature. An easy, or even lazy, message to convey to the eventual purchaser,’ said Janan Choudhury, director of independent fashion eyewear practice, Spectacle Emporium.
‘I don’t have a problem with Chinese eyewear; Garrett Leight and Gentle Monster are both great brands that are made in China. But they’re open about it and willingly challenge peoples’ perception. My practice does the same, so I see no reason to go with these or other brands in future. What I do have a problem with, however, are manufacturers not being honest about where their products are made.
‘I think it’s brazenly conceited to claim that the made in China Puma frames are stamped “Made in China” in their Italian factory for just 19 of their frames, but not quell any lingering questions about where their luxury “Made in Italy” is really made.
‘You wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes and I whole-heartedly applaud Selima Optique for their courage.’
Choudhury’s views on manufacturer openness were shared by Kirk & Kirk Eyewear managing director, Jason Kirk. ‘For too many years the large manufacturers have been less than transparent with their provenance but the only way to deal with it is for opticians to be educated about the quality that we should expect from certain production and the prices that they should command. If opticians stop buying crap, manufacturers will stop selling it.
‘I have not personally seen Kering Eyewear’s production facilities so I cannot comment on this specific case, but hold the product in your hand and make an informed guess where the product comes from.’