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.

Zara's finally opening up shop online - but not for customers in the U.S

Spanish fashion retailer Zara, though much too massive to be considered a boutique, has finally emerged from the ranks of shops with no online presence, with their e-commerce store set to officially launch September 2 in select countries. Inditex, Zaraâ€s parent company, made the announcement after a successful financial run in the first quarter of 2010, with sales up 14 percent from last year. Shoppers in France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom will be able to buy products from Zara online, but as of now there is no word on if and when Zara will have an online store available to customers in the U.S. {Fashionista}

Zara cited sourcing and logistics for their lack of online presence until now. The fashion retailer also reported that their clothes sell quickly, making it difficult to offer them online.

The company is not alone in its delayed entry into cyber shopping. Mass market retail giant H&M also has a limited online presence, with no online shopping offered to U.S. customers.

H&M faces similar issues as Zara

“I think the core thing with the fast fashion guys has been their inability to localize product by specific region,” Retail Analyst Brian Sozzi told Fashionista. “The way I think about H&M, Zara, Forever 21 is that they make a broad bet on fashion, allowing them to receive good costs.” He also said large retailers have focused the majority of their energy on growing their physical stores rather than their Web presence.

Here’s the thing: when the economy was at it’s worst, online retail sales were the one area that either grew or didn’t suffer as much from the downturn. Not having an e-commerce operation at this point is inexcusable for a global retailer. Not only are they missing out on shoppers who may not be near a physical location, but the wait and see approach to e-commerce makes these companies seem like dinosaurs. Offline retail is enormous, but slow and cumbersome. If a retailer wants to know how a certain product will perform in a certain market, it can take weeks to test and respond. Online, a retailer can have thousands of purchases that indicate trends within days. Retailers, particularly mass retailers who target fast fashion shoppers, who fail to put the same level of effort into e-commerce as they do into offline retail risk suffering the same fate as the dinosaurs.

This also ignores incredibly successful online only operations: Net-a-Porter was sold to luxury conglomerate Richemont in a deal that valued the company at £350 million in March (approximately$531 million at the time), Yoox had an IPO in December of 2009 and the company has a current market cap of €284 (approximately $340 million at the current exchange rate). While that may not be enough to replace an offline presence – H&M’S market cap is $21 billion, one e-commerce store worth half a billion dollars could easily keep pace with or outperform even the busiest flagship location.

Then there are the offline behemoths who have similarly fast moving merchandise – Forever 21, for one has managed to build a successful online operation alongside their many physical locations. If they can figure it out, what’s taking Zara, H&M and others so long?

The difficulty in creating a successful online retail store is understandable; but particularly in a tough economy where people are online everyday but not going to malls and shopping districts as often (if at all), Zara and others like it must continue to focus on their Web presence in order to remain relevant into the future.

Marc Jacobâ€s taste for Louis Vuitton and Karlâ€s for Chanel were as sweet as could be. Ombre aquamarine, lavender and bubblegum pink abounded. Fingers, feet and Afros featured playful tassels, baubles and kiddie accessories galore. Remember Candy Land as you prepare to ring in spring.

Louis Vuitton

Chanel

Sherbet shades, subtle shimmer and plenty of potential for layering over sheer hose a la Chanel. Elizabeth and James Japonais Shift Dress, $395 from Shopbop.

Refresh the ubiquitous leather-wrapped wrist look via cotton candy color and mother of pearl charms. Ra Creations bracelet, $70 at Shopbop.

Styled right it can pass for rock-candy luxe.Captured Flower Ring, $4.80 from Forever21.

A classic trench with a ruffled skirt, in a dreamy hue (plus epaulettes!) – this jacket satisfies every sweet tooth. Ruffle-Bottom Jacket, $695 from Burberry at Bergdorf Goodman.

A spot of spring for your head (hair), heart (lapel) or hobo (you got it). Chanel turquoise raffia brooch, $299.99 at Bluefly.