Quantcast

La Chanelphile

August 12, 2011

Dior Stepping on Chanel’s Toes?

Dior Copying Chanel by aleXsandro Palombo
I recently came across this cartoon on Humor Chic by aleXsandro Palombo and he was able to capture in one image some of the sentiments I’ve been feeling for a while. When I saw the quilting of the Dior lady bags I always thought that it was an odd choice of fabrication. Sure, the shape is different but as far as I knew, quilting is not part of Dior’s lexicon – not the way the Chanel quilting is. But, now with this new style of bag they’ve also added a chain strap. Lots of companies are making quilted bags with chain straps these days, but when you look at the ad pictured above (and below) it starts getting a little uncomfortable. It seems like there is too much borrowed from Chanel iconography – the tweed jacket paired with the quilted bag is just too much. If this were a mass market brand it wouldn’t bother me because they’d be offering a look at a lower price. But this is DIOR – another storied couture house. I know Dior is having problems but this is just adding to it.

dior copying chanelIt gets worse. I recently saw an ad for the new Dior watch and my jaw dropped. It looks pretty close to a J12 to me. (Ok, the J12 is a bit close to the Rolex Submariner but at least Chanel did something new with it and made it in ceramic).  What do you think?  Am I being too territorial?  Do you think Dior is borrowing a bit too heavily from Chanel?

dior copying chanel

Image Source: Humor Chic by aleXsandro Palombo

Share on Tumblr
Filed under: Chanel,Chanel Handbags,Chanel Jewelry,Chanel Knockoffs — Tags: — La Chanelphile @ 5:24 am

March 23, 2010

Chanel Wins Domain Name Dispute

When you are a brand like Chanel, protecting the brand’s integrity is of the utmost priority. Since the market for counterfeit goods is far-reaching and vast, it’s difficult to control the sale of counterfeit products.

In recent years, counterfeiters have come under attack, notably in New York City and the infamous Canal Street where you used to be able to get knock offs of just about anything. Last December, numerous businesses were closed down and  NYC officials confiscated over $1 million in bootleg goods. And that’s not all;  eBay, the online store has been sued (sometimes successfully) by the likes of Louis Vuitton (NYTimes.com) and Tiffany (MarketWatch.com) for selling counterfeit merchandise.

It seems that the problem of counterfeit goods is not just a problem on the streets and on eBay.  The problem extends to domain names as well.  We’ve all heard stories of domain names purchased with the intent of selling the name to a rightful owner for an exorbitant amount.  That’s not the only foul play regarding domain names.

Some domain names incorporate a brand name solely for the purpose of selling counterfeit products.  For example, chanelsunglassessale.com – Chanel has no intention of every using that domain – but the brand had a problem with someone else using its brand name in their url to sell fake products. In recent years, Chanel has brought several cases against people/companies that purchase domain names with Chanel in the url where the intent is to use the site to sell counterfeit goods.

Chanel has taken great care in trademarking its name and logo around the world – it seems unfair that anyone could then snatch up a url that could confuse customers into thinking they were purchasing legitimate product – and apparently, Courts agree. A little while back, Chanel filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center against Chenying of Xiang Gang, the People’s Republic of China, for purchasing the following domain names: chanelsunglassessale.com; chaneljewelrysale.com; chanelbagsales.com.

The Complainant [Chanel] stressed that the sale of counterfeit goods on the websites under the disputed domain names is paradigmatic bad faith. The Complainant argues that the public is likely to be confused into believing that the disputed domain names and the websites associated therewith have a connection with the Complainant.

The mediators found in favor of Chanel stating that (1) the url was confusing similar with Chanel’s trademark; (2) Chenying didn’t have any rights to use the Chanel name; and (3) the url names were purchased in bad faith.  The decision, dated February 19, 2010 can be read in full on the WIPO site.

It appears the url transfers have not yet been made, but I would bet that they will either be taken down very soon, or look like the sites below…

Share on Tumblr