Amanda Wakeley Buys Back Her Brand

The Times reports (scroll down) that Amanda Wakeley bought back her label from Jason Granite's Arvoco. It was sold only last year. The Times writes: "Now the intellectual property relating to the label has returned to Wakeley or, specifically, her new venture, AW Atelier. She has also haggled her bridal business Sposa into the deal.

Here’s where it gets trickier. As part of the deal, AW Atelier has granted Arvoco a licence to use the Amanda Wakeley brand.

So, all perfectly straightforward."

Goodwill (store) and Trademarks

I love going to thrift stores. I love to thrift out-of-prints books, 60's glasses, old magazines... and funny fake trademarks.

Here are my two latest finds. The "Gaudy" tee- shirt speaks for itself, but I wonder about the Crocodile tee shirt. Do I reallly see a crocodile eating a person alive (are these dangling limbs?) , or did I indulge too much lately in late-late nights movies ?(Hello Rob Zombie)...

Luxe Bags Logo Free

The New York Times has an article today about Bottega Veneta, the Italian brand, and its original and efficient marketing strategy. Bottega Veneta shuns making an aggressive use of a logo to promote their brand, and concentrate instead on superior craftsmanship.

Ruth La Ferla writes: "Today the muted logo-free look that is the brand’s signature is widely regarded as the standard-bearer for a new kind of luxury: subtle, long-lasting and recession-proof."

The Purse Blog wrote about Bottega Veneta Veneta bag: "When most people think of Bottega Veneta and the signature bag, they think of the Veneta. And when those people are thinking about the signature style, they think of the intrecciato woven leather. These are both aspects of Bottega Veneta that define the brand."

Would you prefer the Veneta with, say, silver B & V letters dangling from the zipper?

I heart Trademark Law

Is Gucci authorized to say that it heart NY? Maybe not...

Sez the Post: "Thomas Ranese, chief marketing officer for the Empire State Development agency, which controls the copyright to the slogan, told The Post that Gucci had not contacted the agency and did not have permission to use the logo. "

Well, this is not about copyright , but trademark my friends, as in:

Word Mark
I NY
Goods and Services
IC 018. US 001 002 003 022 041. G & S: Traveling bags, tote bags, drawstring pouches, all purpose sports bags, cosmetic bags sold empty, umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks. FIRST USE: 19770715. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840000
Mark Drawing Code
(3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS
Design Search Code
02.11.01 - Hearts excluding hearts as carriers or depicted on playing cards
Serial Number
76015092
Filing Date
March 31, 2000
Current Filing Basis
1A
Original Filing Basis
1A
Published for Opposition
December 5, 2000
Registration Number
2431705
Registration Date
February 27, 2001
Owner
(REGISTRANT) New York State Department of Economic Development, The STATE AGENCY NEW YORK One Commerce Plaza Albany NEW YORK 12245
Attorney of Record
LAWRENCE V. MOLNAR,
Prior Registrations
1555836;1558379;1704940;AND OTHERS
Description of Mark
The drawing is lined for the color red.
Type of Mark
TRADEMARK
Register
PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text
SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator
LIVE

When One Trademarks One's Name...

Via the WSJ, Joseph Abboud sues Joseph Abboud for Trademark infringement. That is the peril a fashion designer has to face after selling its company, if the trademark of the company is his own name. The same fate was met by Chantal Thomass and Ines de la Fressange. Ines de la Fressange won her case by arguing that, since she no longer designed the collections sold under her name, its use confused the consumers as to the origin of the product. She won the case...

The Magical Power of Brands

Caroline Weber reviewed Deluxe, by Dana Thomas, for the New York Times Book Review this week end.

Ms. Thomas credits Bernard Arnault for realizing that brands by themselves represent an asset for the luxury industry, in a somewhat detached way from craftsmanship or even creativity. The article notes that items sold under a luxury brand are not always made as one believes a luxury item should be made (cheaper material, machines replacing petites mains...)

Another issue for luxury brands: their ubiquity. Counterfeiting is only a part of the problem, as many more clients buy the "real thing." Caroline Weber writes that “ a designer jacket or handbag , or watch no longer transmits reliable information about its wearers’ socioeconomic statue or background. “ Example of why here. It will be interesting to follow how luxury brands will react to keep the magic alive. I suggest the Hermes way, craftsmanship. Sometimes, taking more time still means more money.

Fashion as P.R.

The WSJ had an article last week on the power of outrageous fashion design to sell mere , albeit expensive trinkets. Branding is indeed a "magic" process. Take a designer, have him (her) design a line of clothes, produce a show, create "buzz" around the show, get some nice pictures in magazines, maybe an article in Vogue, a few clothes make it into a store of choice (think Colette, not Macy's). Designer is known, designer sells handbags, handbags are still expensive. Let's go down the licensing well, designer creates perfumes, expresses in inteviews that perfume reminds him of his native Provence, her grandmother perfume, the tree where she played hide and seek, and so on. Perfume sells at Macy's.

The New Times had an article on Thursday on a similar subject: the article quotes Suzy Menkes, "It was a season of bags and shoes", and notes that" in some instances, as at the Christian Lacroix show here, this point was put across so baldly that each model sashayed down a vivid green runway, stopped for the cameras and then, apparently as instructed, awkwardly held out her purse."

Johnny Cupcakes

I like this site and the products sold there quite a bit. The first time I stumbled upon the site, I could not help but fear for the designer exposing his designs to the world. How easily may another one get "inspired" by the designs, and produce a similar line? If I would design a screen print tee-shirt, using cup capes as a pun, would it be copyright infringement? The mere idea of using cupcakes as a design motto is a mere idea, and ideas are not protected by copyright. How closer to the original design should I move to break the law?

In a recent Wall Street Journal article about the brand, Mr. Johnny Earle, who is indeed Johnny Cupcakes, is quoted saying" Johnny Cupcakes is more than a brand. It's my name." Well, let's hope that it is not just a name, and that this "name" has acquired secondary meaning, and is indeed is a trademark.

Coach v. Target

The Wall Street Journal reports that Coach filed a suit against Target in federal court last week. Coach claims that Target sold a counterfeit Coach bag, whereas Target claims that it is a real Coach bag. Target is not licensed to distribute Coach bags.

The WSJ article mentions HR 683 as one of the reasons designers and manufacturers are getting more aggressive protecting their brands and designs. Right now, trademark law, not copyright law, is the law that designers may use to protect their designs, claiming trade dress rights in design. American copyright law is not protective of designs. HR 683, if voted into law, will protect famous marks against blurring and tarnishing. One can argue that selling a Coach bag at Target tarnishes the brand. The shopping experience is hardly the same. Well, Coach does not sell pop corn and cheap hot dogs inside their store, for instance.

The WSJ article quotes a Target statement that describes its clients as "guests." The goods sold at high-end stores are becoming more and more irrelevant, but creating an original shopping experience is becoming the most important aspect of selling, for luxury retailers and discounters alike. Wal Mart is getting preppy, and may even benefit from selling khaki pants to its employees. But I digress. Is selling high end goods out of their original retail environment blurring?

Rouge à Logo

I give the house of Chanel the " I found a new place to put my logo" award of the month. Very clever!

Branding loosing control

There is a very interesting article today in the WSJ today about "Chavs," a group of, well, partying-loud kind of persons, that may be a threat to luxury branding...

Their sartorial choices are, ahem, on the flashy, if not the gaudy side. Lots of big and, probably, fake, jewelry, and brands, brands, brands! They favor (favored?) a certain Burberry baseball cap. Since Chavs have been very naughty, and have been partying quite hard, Burberry baseball cap became a symbol of infamy, and has been banned altogether by some night clubs. Burberry has decided to stop producing them.

But that's not all. Prada has stopped distributing a certain type of black Prada shoes, that became also part of the Chav's uniform. A Prada spokesman is quoted in the article as saying:" When you are a brand appealing to many people around the world, it's impossible to control what gets into the imagination of people."

This comment reveals quite a bit about branding. Let's take a basic shoe, stamp it Prada. It is now a shoe, with the name Prada on it. Marketing professionals must now sprinkle Pixie dust on these shoes, to create an aura of good taste, luxury, around them. Alas, a group of unpolished youngsters start using the shoes, and thus interfere beetween the product and the marketing efforts.

Will H.R. 683 be urgently amended to include dilution of a trademark by unpolished consummers?