Should the actions of the parent company matter?

Remember when Urban Outfitters opened up a retail garden center called Terrain back in 2008? We talked quit a bit about it at the time. Frankly I found then, and still find Urban Outfitters foray into the garden world simply an attempt to cash in on their name. I have been in Urban Outfitters, and while they do have some interesting stuff, it always seemed a bit phony. Doesn't matter, as I am not the target audience and they don't care what this middle aged guy thinks. It's Urban Outfitters and the are just so hip and cool, and if you don't get it your not. Does Terrain’s being owned by Urban Outfitter’s mean anything when the parent company is caught "borrowing" ideas from smaller independent artists? I came upon a Tweet by Stevie in Chicago who owns She designs and makes jewelry, which she sells online through Etsy. She say’s Urban Outfitters stole her designs, and is now marketing them under the Urban Outfitters label. Take a look here and here and see what you think. Of course now she wishes she had copy-righted her designs, but never the less it does seem a bit sleazy.

My question is, do the actions of the parent company affect the other businesses they own, like the garden center Terrain? Should it? I believe this kind of stuff does resonate, and over time degrades the image these companies have worked so hard to build. Suddenly Urban Outfitters doesn't seem so cool.  Terrain?

Looks like Boing-Boing, one of the worlds most popular blogs picked up on the story this afternoon. I wonder if they saw it here? I like to read their blog, so you never know. Never the less this shows the power of The Internet to spread ideas.

Now the Huffington Post has picked up the story.