No more Chanel-(verb)? What about Kanye-(verb)?


Yup, enough with the chanel-esque, chanel-static, chanel-tastic and the list goes on. Or at least that’s what Chanel, the brand announced on WWD back cover. This is the content of the ad.

______

“A note of information and entreaty to fashion editors, advertisers, copywriters and other well-intentioned mis-users of our Chanel name.
Chanel was a designer, an extraordinary woman who made a timeless contribution to fashion. Chanel is a perfume. Chanel is modern elegance in couture, ready-to-wear, accessories, watches and fine jewelry. Chanel is our registered trademark for fragrance, cosmetics, clothing, accessories and other lovely things. Although our style is justly famous, a jacket is not ‘a Chanel jacket’ unless it is ours, and somebody else’s cardigans are not ‘Chanel for now.’ And even if we are flattered by such tributes to our fame as ‘Chanel-issime,  Chanel-ed, Chanels, and Chanel-ized’, PLEASE DON’T. Our lawyers positively detest them. We take our trademark seriously.

Merci,
Chanel, Inc.”

______

So yeah, that’s it for all the suckers who love the word Chanel-(verb/noun). No more of the whole “OMG! Your jacket looks so Chanel!” – including yours truly, part of those suckers. According to this note, we cannot use the word, “Chanel” as a verb or noun at all. It is a trademark. So no misuse.

But you can still say something like, “Designer X showed a collection of jackets that looked a lot like Chanel’s 2004 collection.”It is a gray area which means you have a point to defend if Chanel sues you.

So what about if I say, “I got Kanye-ed by my friend during my graduation speech?”. Is that illegal?

And for that matter, it actually includes all other trademarked brands from LV, YSL to Gucci. If it is marked, then it’s a big No-No. It’s actually right because this is a way to protect their brand in a long term basis.

Say, if someone stole the name “Chanel” for something bad things, and the real Chanel wants to sue. They would have a hard time suing because there is a loop hole of, “Of all the times, why do you want to sue now? There had been many icidents where Chanel were used and why did you not do anything?”. So it shows that Chanel had made effort to prevent it and when they want to sue someone, they have a case.

I learn that from “Moonlight Resonance”, a Hong Kong family drama which came in handy in this situation. So say good bye to your Chanel dictionaries and think of something new. I did.

DIRTY TWEED! Yup. I’ll explain it soon enough.

CIAO! xoxo

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: