In the land down under, where innovation and the 'fair go' ethos are deeply cherished, a recent controversy has emerged that has left Australian entrepreneurs feeling betrayed. Kmart, a household name and retail giant, stands accused of what some are calling an 'un-Australian' act – the alleged replication of popular products created by local inventors, selling them at a fraction of the price.


The latest in a string of such allegations involves a pair of sibling entrepreneurs from the southern Sydney suburb of Sans Souci. Sandra Abade and her brother Luka Maric, who founded Dog Friendly Co six years ago, have built a successful business selling personalised dog harnesses. Their venture, which began as a side hustle, has blossomed into a million-dollar enterprise with over 300,000 harnesses sold. However, their success story took an unexpected turn when they discovered that Kmart had begun selling strikingly similar harnesses.


The Kmart harnesses, which allow pet owners to stick the letters of their pet's name onto the product, are priced between $12 to $15. This significantly undercuts the Dog Friendly Co harnesses, which can cost up to five times as much. The siblings argue that Kmart's version not only mimics the design of their harness, which is strategically shaped to strap underneath a dog's chest rather than around its legs, but also potentially compromises safety due to lower quality.


'As a small business, especially in the early stages, you're working day and night... and then just when it gets to a point where you start getting noticed, a bigger company comes in and copies you,' Sandra Abade lamented. Her brother Luka Maric echoed her sentiments, labelling the act as 'duping' and 'un-Australian'.

This isn't the first time Kmart has been accused of such practices. Just weeks prior, Alex Gransbury, founder of the industrial design company Dreamfarm, called out Kmart for allegedly copying his award-winning fold-flat citrus juicer, the Fluicer. The Fluicer, which has been recognised by Time Magazine as one of the best inventions and featured on Oprah Winfrey's list of favourite things, retails for between $19.95 and $29.95. Kmart's version, produced by Anko and priced at a mere $5, was claimed to be a 'lower quality' copy that lacked the same anti-spray features and struggled with effectively juicing even small limes.

Gransbury pointed out that patenting the Fluicer in Australia was not economically viable, costing around $30,000 plus yearly maintenance fees, a sum too steep for many small businesses to afford. 'I wish, in Australia, we supported each other, but when did it become OK to rip each other off?' he questioned.


In response to these allegations, Kmart has maintained that its merchandise team conducts rigorous checks to ensure that its products do not infringe on the rights of others. 'Our merchandise process also ensures we conduct thorough checks during the product ranging and development process, to ensure we are not infringing the rights of others,' a spokesperson stated.

The situation raises important questions about the protection of intellectual property and the ethics of large corporations potentially capitalising on the innovations of smaller businesses. It also highlights the challenges faced by entrepreneurs in safeguarding their creations against replication by major players in the market.

For our readers, particularly those who are budding inventors or small business owners, this story serves as a cautionary tale. It underscores the importance of understanding intellectual property rights and considering the potential costs and benefits of patenting your products. It also reminds us to support local businesses and the spirit of Australian ingenuity.


We invite you to share your thoughts and experiences. Have you ever felt that your ideas or products were unfairly copied by a larger company? How did you handle the situation? Let's discuss the importance of innovation and fair competition in our comments section below.