Demaestro - 5:18 pm on Mar 16, 2011 (gmt 0)
I thought there was a distinction in the law between selling obvious fakes and selling counterfeits and as long as you weren't representing yourself as an authentic version then you were ok.
For example look at all the so called "no name" brands of cereal. There are "Fruit Loops" and there are "Fruity Hoops"
Maybe I am missing why this case is different but judging by the name of the site and the fact that there was a "clear statement on the home page that the items on sale were copies" I fail to see why they were charged with counterfeiting. The Trademark infringement case may have been stronger but I would have to see the logos and marks they were using on their "copycat clubs"