Chanel RTW ~ Reveals, Chit-chat & Info thread

[cafecreme15]

I know right ! Now it's limited edition I want it more !!!!



Yes exactly!!! I still need to look for those !



Does vca have a trademark on the actual shape? That would be cool to know.

This is so interesting to me as a chanel and vca fan !

This shape has been used for centuries and I would think It was in the public domain

This is one of the stages where Chanel and VCA could have an interesting legal battle - over whether the mark (in this case the Alhambra) is generic and thus unprotected/free to be used in the public domain. I am unsure if VCA has registered the mark with the US PTO, but if so, there is a presumption against the mark being generic unless and until another party argues the mark has become generic and can prove this. Even if the Alhambra is unregistered, VCA can still have established trademark rights to it under common law by using it in commerce. If Chanel in this case is able to prove that the mark is generic, then they are free to use it. If that is not able to be proven, then VCA will have to prove that there has been trademark infringement by Chanel, which involves a few different factors, most importantly whether there would be likelihood of confusion amongst the public/relevant customer base should Chanel continue to use the Alhambra symbol on their sweater (i.e. Would people see the sweater and think VCA made it because of the Alhambra pattern, whereas the garment actually has a different origin).

In sum, there are lots of different ways this could play out. And there you have your mini crash course in trademarks law [emoji23]

 

[pigleto972001]

Wow ! Thanks for illustrating that much better we shall see

When I showed my friend that sweater he said it would Match my vca!

 

[cafecreme15]

Wow ! Thanks for illustrating that much better we shall see

When I showed my friend that sweater he said it would Match my vca!

The first time I saw this sweater I immediately thought of VCA too!

 

[nicole0612]

Maybe it's just defective fabric and they'll fix it. Haha. A girl can dream. I was gambling on it going to sale.

Here's the pics of me w it both ways. I have my cuba tank under but thought it would be cute w a simple white tank or the ritz one [emoji52] View attachment 3786028View attachment 3786029

I really like it. It would be perfect with your ritz tee. Maybe it will come back...? Did it fit true to size?

 

[nicole0612]

Or a white bodysuit under it
Hahaha!

LOL!!

 

[pigleto972001]

I really like it. It would be perfect with your ritz tee. Maybe it will come back...? Did it fit true to size?

Yes I think it was ! I was not a huge fan of the shoulder pads though. It would be nice if they did come back

 

[gracekelly]

This is one of the stages where Chanel and VCA could have an interesting legal battle - over whether the mark (in this case the Alhambra) is generic and thus unprotected/free to be used in the public domain. I am unsure if VCA has registered the mark with the US PTO, but if so, there is a presumption against the mark being generic unless and until another party argues the mark has become generic and can prove this. Even if the Alhambra is unregistered, VCA can still have established trademark rights to it under common law by using it in commerce. If Chanel in this case is able to prove that the mark is generic, then they are free to use it. If that is not able to be proven, then VCA will have to prove that there has been trademark infringement by Chanel, which involves a few different factors, most importantly whether there would be likelihood of confusion amongst the public/relevant customer base should Chanel continue to use the Alhambra symbol on their sweater (i.e. Would people see the sweater and think VCA made it because of the Alhambra pattern, whereas the garment actually has a different origin).

In sum, there are lots of different ways this could play out. And there you have your mini crash course in trademarks law [emoji23]

Thanks for this! Honestly, unless the designs on the sweater had mother of pearl or stones on them, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. This is a design that predated the origins of both companies and can be found in many forms. Does that mean that shamrocks belong to VCA as well? There is a historical grounding and relationship in the design.. Well this ruckus should keep a few people employed whilst it plays out.

 

[pigleto972001]

Thanks for this! Honestly, unless the designs on the sweater had mother of pearl or stones on them, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. This is a design that predated the origins of both companies and can be found in many forms. Does that mean that shamrocks belong to VCA as well? There is a historical grounding and relationship in the design.. Well this ruckus should keep a few people employed whilst it plays out.

Well 1/3 SA said it was vca and the other 2 weren't sure. I'd love to see if that gets back up from other sources. The other two thought there was a defect so we will see. I just thought it was fun to share w y'all!

 

[cafecreme15]

Thanks for this! Honestly, unless the designs on the sweater had mother of pearl or stones on them, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. This is a design that predated the origins of both companies and can be found in many forms. Does that mean that shamrocks belong to VCA as well? There is a historical grounding and relationship in the design.. Well this ruckus should keep a few people employed whilst it plays out.

I tend to think this is largely correct, mainly because VCA sells jewelry, and the Chanel item in question is a sweater, making it pretty unlikely that a reasonably sophisticated consumer would confuse the origin of the goods and think the Chanel sweater was made by VCA. This assumes that the Alhambra design isn't generic, and I think there are some strong arguments that go both ways on that point! For example, the Alhambra is a distinctive mark that is widely associated with VCA in the jewelry world, as red soles are associated with Louboutin in the shoe world. On the other hand, as you rightly point out, this symbol has a very long historical track record of decorative use across cultures.

I love when fashion and the law intersect!

 

[cafecreme15]

Well 1/3 SA said it was vca and the other 2 weren't sure. I'd love to see if that gets back up from other sources. The other two thought there was a defect so we will see. I just thought it was fun to share w y'all!

Absolutely! Please let us know if a consensus emerges on this amongst the SAs!

 

[klynneann]

Well 1/3 SA said it was vca and the other 2 weren't sure. I'd love to see if that gets back up from other sources. The other two thought there was a defect so we will see. I just thought it was fun to share w y'all!

I casually asked about the sweater this evening and my SA and the SM looked at each other, so I said I heard it had been recalled. So then they laughed and of course asked where I had heard that (I just smiled and said I know a few things lol). It wasn't clear if they weren't supposed to say anything or if they just didn't want to be broadcasting it. In any case, the SM said that they weren't told why it had been recalled but she had two theories: 1) she had noticed that the metallic thread had been poking through a lot and so she thought it was a defect or 2) I mentioned it being itchy and she thought maybe it was supposed to have been lined.

 

[pigleto972001]

So interesting !! Maybe it just needed to be lined. Ooooh ! It would make it more comfortable for sure. The act 1 coco sweater I tried on is lined in the front w the same type of lining as the jackets; I think to make a cleaner line as the logo in front has velvet and could buckle the fabric alone.

And I did notice the metallic thread but there are the same threads in other pieces. Why they would recall this sweater but not do anything about the Paris Rome black jacket issue surprises me. I wonder if there is any merit to the vca claim.

The plot thickens ....

 

[gracekelly]

I tend to think this is largely correct, mainly because VCA sells jewelry, and the Chanel item in question is a sweater, making it pretty unlikely that a reasonably sophisticated consumer would confuse the origin of the goods and think the Chanel sweater was made by VCA. This assumes that the Alhambra design isn't generic, and I think there are some strong arguments that go both ways on that point! For example, the Alhambra is a distinctive mark that is widely associated with VCA in the jewelry world, as red soles are associated with Louboutin in the shoe world. On the other hand, as you rightly point out, this symbol has a very long historical track record of decorative use across cultures.

I love when fashion and the law intersect!

We are having fun with this in any event lol!

Edit: New thought...may be they will recall them and call CNN to document how they piled them all up and set them on fire as they do with a lot of fake merchandise. They bulldoze the watches, so burn the sweaters lol!

 

[argcdg]

The legal nerd in me is having so much fun thinking through the different ways a trademark battle could play out with this!

Same!!

 

[argcdg]

So interesting !! Maybe it just needed to be lined. Ooooh ! It would make it more comfortable for sure. The act 1 coco sweater I tried on is lined in the front w the same type of lining as the jackets; I think to make a cleaner line as the logo in front has velvet and could buckle the fabric alone.

And I did notice the metallic thread but there are the same threads in other pieces. Why they would recall this sweater but not do anything about the Paris Rome black jacket issue surprises me. I wonder if there is any merit to the vca claim.

The plot thickens ....

I feel like once itchy, always itchy . . .