A screenshot of Forever21's homepage. Don't go too crazy with that rebel attitude.

In today’s “Isn’t that ironic?” news, Forever21 has threatened to sue Rachel Kane, the blogger behind WTForever21, saying that the site constitutes “trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition and dilution.”

Yes, the same Forever21 that often finds themselves on the receiving end of accusations of trademark infringement, copyright infringement and really blatant designer knockoffs.

Unfortunately, Jezebel is reporting that Kane is likely to buckle to pressure from Forever 21’s attorneys to remove her site. “Unless I can work something out with Forever 21, June 10 will be the last day for WTForever21.com,” she said.

We say unfortunately because this is reminiscent of the Facebook vs. Lamebook dispute we covered alongside the saga of the two the Coveteds. While we’re not lawyers, and nothing in this post should be taken as legal advice, we’re fairly certain any case Forever21 brought against Kane would be dismissed or resolved in her favor.

For one, the site is clearly labeled as not being affiliated with Forever21. Second, any respectable lawyer would probably have the case tossed out on summary judgment for the simple fact that parody, even against trademarked and copyrighted entities, is protected in the US. Online, offline, being able to make fun of people who have more money and power than you do is protected speech, and that’s been upheld even for really abhorrent people who mock and insult good people (see: Fred Phelps). If speech as ignorant and hateful as that is allowed to stand, we’d put money on Kane being able to mock and insult ugly clothes on a domain incorporating a copyrighted or trademark name, so long as she isn’t passing her site off or operating a similarly confusing site.

This is not the same as registering Forever22 and selling inexpensive designer influenced clothes, or registering Forever21.co and opening an e-commerce site. There’s a reason that popular companies buy negative versions of their domain like Domainsucks.com and others. It’s because in the few times where people have fought large companies, the large companies have lost.

This threatened suit, which seems to be for the purpose of engaging Kane in a protracted legal battle if she doesn’t concede to demands to remove her site, seems to fall on its face from a legal perspective and already makes Forever21 seem like a bit of a loser. It seems unlikely, but we really hope Kane does let Forever21 take this to court so a judge can tell them to WTFoff.

Shopping at Forever 21 has always been a budget-friendly endeavor, and the new collection will not deviate from the fashion-forward (often drawing the ire of designers who feel the store’s designs aren’t original enough) and reasonably priced apparel and accessories.

Lichtenberg has been styled big name celebrities like Lady Gaga, and explains how this venture is a positive one for the Forever 21 shopper and his own career saying, “It is going to be for the customer that is younger and has seen my work on celebrities and musicians, but doesnâ€t have the money to plunk down for my main line. This is definitely going to be a great opportunity to be on a more global scale.” {College Fashion}

This collaboration is just the beginning of a series of collaborations that the brand is planning to embark on to offer more upscale merchandise at their signature low prices.  It seems as though the brand is taking cues from competing stores like H&M and Target who have had numerous designers (think Madonna, Roberto Cavalli, Jean-Paul Gaultier and Proenza Schouler) launch capsule collections for their brands in the past.

With over 50 copyright infringement lawsuits under their belt for drawing a little too much ‘inspiration’ from names like Anthropologie, Anna Sui and Diane Von Furstenberg, it’s seems like a smart idea for Forever 21 to bring in their own designers to catch consumer attention instead of copying others. {the Cut}