Kmart accused of stealing Aussie innovation: 'It’s the most un-Australian thing I’ve ever seen'
- Replies 0
Aussie businesses rely on innovation to stay ahead, but when a major retailer gets involved, things can quickly take a turn.
What started as an exciting breakthrough for a local entrepreneur soon sparked a controversy that’s now catching the attention of many.
The issue has ignited a conversation about what happens when support for homegrown talent is called into question.
A small-business owner has accused Kmart of engaging in an 'un-Australian' act after the retail giant began selling a dupe of a groundbreaking kitchen tool he designed.
Alex Gransbury, the founder of domestic industrial design company Dreamfarm, claimed Kmart had copied his award-winning fold-flat citrus juicer, the Fluicer.
Gransbury has spent the past 22 years redesigning everyday household items to enhance their functionality, starting his Brisbane-based company in his garage in 2003.
The Fluicer, which Gransbury designed last year, became his most successful creation.
Available in three sizes for limes, lemons, and oranges, the Fluicer retails between $19.95 and $29.95.
The juicer boasts a unique fold design, an inbuilt pip catcher for straining and funnelling juice, and anti-spray features.
Recognised for its innovative design, the Fluicer was named one of Time Magazine's best inventions in 2023 and was also listed on Oprah's favourite things.
However, earlier this month, Gransbury discovered a nearly identical version of his product, being sold under Kmart’s Anko brand, for just $5.
The Fluicer’s distinctive fold design and anti-spray feature were replicated, though the Kmart version lacked the same functionality.
Gransbury, clearly frustrated, stated: 'It’s the most un-Australian thing I’ve ever seen.'
He added: 'We design everything in-house in Brisbane ourselves, we come up with the prototyping, we employ about 30 people here in Australia, and that product was huge for us.'
Gransbury also claimed Kmart used photos of his product on their packaging, showing anti-spray features similar to those in the Fluicer.
However, he pointed out that the Kmart product did not incorporate the same anti-spray features.
According to Gransbury, Kmart’s knockoff was too small to juice lemons effectively and struggled even with limes.
Gransbury revealed that while he had not patented the Fluicer in Australia, the cost of doing so, around $30,000, was not financially feasible.
He also noted that maintaining a patent would require yearly fees, adding to the financial burden.
Even with a patent, Gransbury explained, the onus would have been on him to take legal action, which would have cost him a significant amount of money.
This wasn’t the first time a Dreamfarm product had been copied, but Gransbury expressed feeling particularly disheartened by the fact that another Australian company had ripped off his design.
'I wish, in Australia, we supported each other, but when did it become OK to rip each other off?' he asked.
As this controversy continues to unfold, one question remains: should bigger companies be held more accountable for copying local innovations, or is it simply part of business?
We’d love to hear your thoughts – drop a comment and join the conversation.
What started as an exciting breakthrough for a local entrepreneur soon sparked a controversy that’s now catching the attention of many.
The issue has ignited a conversation about what happens when support for homegrown talent is called into question.
A small-business owner has accused Kmart of engaging in an 'un-Australian' act after the retail giant began selling a dupe of a groundbreaking kitchen tool he designed.
Alex Gransbury, the founder of domestic industrial design company Dreamfarm, claimed Kmart had copied his award-winning fold-flat citrus juicer, the Fluicer.
Gransbury has spent the past 22 years redesigning everyday household items to enhance their functionality, starting his Brisbane-based company in his garage in 2003.
The Fluicer, which Gransbury designed last year, became his most successful creation.
Available in three sizes for limes, lemons, and oranges, the Fluicer retails between $19.95 and $29.95.
The juicer boasts a unique fold design, an inbuilt pip catcher for straining and funnelling juice, and anti-spray features.
Recognised for its innovative design, the Fluicer was named one of Time Magazine's best inventions in 2023 and was also listed on Oprah's favourite things.
However, earlier this month, Gransbury discovered a nearly identical version of his product, being sold under Kmart’s Anko brand, for just $5.
The Fluicer’s distinctive fold design and anti-spray feature were replicated, though the Kmart version lacked the same functionality.
Gransbury, clearly frustrated, stated: 'It’s the most un-Australian thing I’ve ever seen.'
He added: 'We design everything in-house in Brisbane ourselves, we come up with the prototyping, we employ about 30 people here in Australia, and that product was huge for us.'
Gransbury also claimed Kmart used photos of his product on their packaging, showing anti-spray features similar to those in the Fluicer.
However, he pointed out that the Kmart product did not incorporate the same anti-spray features.
According to Gransbury, Kmart’s knockoff was too small to juice lemons effectively and struggled even with limes.
Gransbury revealed that while he had not patented the Fluicer in Australia, the cost of doing so, around $30,000, was not financially feasible.
He also noted that maintaining a patent would require yearly fees, adding to the financial burden.
Even with a patent, Gransbury explained, the onus would have been on him to take legal action, which would have cost him a significant amount of money.
This wasn’t the first time a Dreamfarm product had been copied, but Gransbury expressed feeling particularly disheartened by the fact that another Australian company had ripped off his design.
'I wish, in Australia, we supported each other, but when did it become OK to rip each other off?' he asked.
As this controversy continues to unfold, one question remains: should bigger companies be held more accountable for copying local innovations, or is it simply part of business?
We’d love to hear your thoughts – drop a comment and join the conversation.
