Alexander Wang rocco vs coco

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#16
It would be so nice for them to give you an answer, so we all know once and for all and no more speculating...

And i do apologise if i am wrong, but i guess we were all going off of different things, i just remember reading the original AW thread from start to finish and seeing that retailer Mick margo was selling it as the Coco with black and silver studs in summer 2009...

Fingers crossed that they get back to you :D
 
#18
I bought the original Coco (black with brass/gold studs) and also the Rocco (black with silver studs) back in 2009. I believe at the time, the Rocco was specifically referring to black with silver studs while coco was either black with brass or the blue denim (exclusive to shopbop). Soon after due to copyright/infringement issues, all are now referred to as "rocco"

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. :p
 
#19
^ IA. I remember seeing the Black/Silver version specifically labeled as the 'Rocco' on various retail sites, but the Black/Brass and the Blue Denim version was the 'Coco.'

LR - I hope that you'll get an answer so we all know for sure. :yes:
 
#20
platinum_girly said:
It would be so nice for them to give you an answer, so we all know once and for all and no more speculating...

And i do apologise if i am wrong, but i guess we were all going off of different things, i just remember reading the original AW thread from start to finish and seeing that retailer Mick margo was selling it as the Coco with black and silver studs in summer 2009...

Fingers crossed that they get back to you :D
Click to expand...

you don't have to apologise!!at all!! =)
 
#21
I still don't get why there's a legal issue with the name Coco. It's not copyrighted, is it? Can you put a copyright on a name?!
If so, then a few celebs such a s Courteney Cox will be in trouble, as they named their daughter Coco… :amuse:
 
#22
jennytalula said:
I still don't get why there's a legal issue with the name Coco. It's not copyrighted, is it? Can you put a copyright on a name?!
If so, then a few celebs such a s Courteney Cox will be in trouble, as they named their daughter Coco… :amuse:
Click to expand...
ITA!! I mean, even my doggie's name is Coco.. Does it mean I'm in trouble?? ahah Just kidding.. I have no idea too.
 
#24
Chanel are TOO protective of their brand at times.... but i can kinda see their point of view, let's face it- there are some real dummies out there that once hearing the word "Coco" may think it is one of Chanels designs, lololol
 
#26
littlerock said:
Maybe it only applies when selling merchandise with that name? I agree that it doesn't make too much sense since that wasn't the actual brand name.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. Trademark protection (in this case Coco or Rocco) is granted for products or services used in commerce. So feel free to name your pets or children Coco!
 
#27
lizmarielowe said:
yepp that's probably correct!
Click to expand...

I work in the Trademark and IP group of large retail company - so find this issue incredibly fascinating! Let's start by clarifying that this is actually a trademark issue (which in this case protects things like product names - Coco vs. Rocco) and not a copyright issue (which generally protects works of art - or more relavantly for this forum - the design of the bag).

Here are my thoughts - they're not based on any facts I know about any alleged infringement or legal actions - but I base them given my work in trademark law. My every day work includes clearing product names - yes, even handbag names! So please take it with a grain of salt...

I did some digging and it appears that Chanel owns trademark registrations for the term COCO - and the registrations do specifically include handbags. So Chanel had every legal right to pursue action against Alexander Wang's use of Coco for his handbag. And in my opinion they correct in doing so - since to help maintain trademark protection worldwide you really need to show that you've been active about "policing" your trademarks.

Also, from a business and marketing perspective it would surprise me that Alexander Wang would change the name of his bag "on purpose." It was the "IT" bag - constantly being editorialized and talked about in fashion mags and the media etc. It's every retailer/designer's dream! Designers spend so much money, time, resources etc. trying to build equity into their product names. They want consumers to flock to stores asking about THE COCO or THE ROCCO - they don't want to confuse consumers. Take for example Chloe and their famed "Paddington" bag or YSL's iconic "Muse" bag. They would never dream of changing the name of their bags. They want their products to have legacy - and it certainly wouldn't have happened if they changed the name of their bag for every iteration that came out (like color, different leathers, etc.)

I also don't think we can take much merit in what third party websites were calling the bag. As a designer - you often have little control over third parties that sell your goods (mostly logistical - I'm sure the team at Alexander Wang's hardly had the resources to check every single website or retailer selling their goods). Also, I'm sure some of the third party websites were more then happy to keep calling the bag COCO - especially if they detected any consumer confusion. Wouldn't it be easier for them to sell the bags as COCO if that's what their customer's kept asking for?

In any case...again, I'm commenting mostly from my perspective in trademark law and brand protection...not that I've got any insider info on this issue! But it is definitely an interesting one!
 
#28
^ You make valid points and it's great to have your insight thrown in. The problem I have with that is it wasn't just third party websites. It was the AW website as well that had both listed for a long time. I received my AW Coco bag (second edition) from the factory long after Rocco bags were being made and sold.

All I wonder is why, if they created the Rocco name for the sole purpose of replacing the Coco duffel bag, did they continue making the Coco bag after the Rocco bag?
 
#29
littlerock said:
^ You make valid points and it's great to have your insight thrown in. The problem I have with that is it wasn't just third party websites. It was the AW website as well that had both listed for a long time. I received my AW Coco bag (second edition) from the factory long after Rocco bags were being made and sold.

All I wonder is why, if they created the Rocco name for the sole purpose of replacing the Coco duffel bag, did they continue making the Coco bag after the Rocco bag?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is very interesting. My only thought is that AW may have continued to use the COCO name while battling it out with Chanel (if this is in fact what happened). In my business experience for example, even if we get an alleged infringement claim against one of our products we'll generally continue to sell until a settlement has been reached (and settlements can take awhile to be reached. Especially if both parties are aggressive and holding their ground). If this was in fact the case with AW, perhaps he wanted to include both names on his website to start preparing his customer base that a name change was in the works? Only my guess...but even a bad strategy at that since it's caused so much customer confusion!

I would LOOOOOVE to know the real story. But I'm not holding my breath for the real answer from AW or Chanel. From my experience, details of such settlements are almost never given to the public. Often, neither side will admit to wrong doing in the settlement, but may agree to damages, refrain from using a product name, etc...

So, unfortunately we may never know!
 
#30
Zoe Bradley said:
Yes, this is very interesting. My only thought is that AW may have continued to use the COCO name while battling it out with Chanel (if this is in fact what happened). In my business experience for example, even if we get an alleged infringement claim against one of our products we'll generally continue to sell until a settlement has been reached (and settlements can take awhile to be reached. Especially if both parties are aggressive and holding their ground). If this was in fact the case with AW, perhaps he wanted to include both names on his website to start preparing his customer base that a name change was in the works? Only my guess...but even a bad strategy at that since it's caused so much customer confusion!

I would LOOOOOVE to know the real story. But I'm not holding my breath for the real answer from AW or Chanel. From my experience, details of such settlements are almost never given to the public. Often, neither side will admit to wrong doing in the settlement, but may agree to damages, refrain from using a product name, etc...

So, unfortunately we may never know!
Click to expand...

You are genius, this explanation COMPLETELY makes the most sense to me, i mean WHY would he of chosen to change the name unless his arm was twisted to and perhaps he did keep both terms for his bags whilst they were battling things out (the 2 companies)

I thank you for your professional opinion and point of view, i feel settled with your view of things :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top