It got me thinking about the issue of copying and knock-offs in the fashion industry all over again.
To me, it seems to be a little heavy-handed on the part of Chanel. It is my belief that those who are able to afford “the real thing”, are unlikely to buy a “Chanel-inspired” jacket from the high street. Indeed, why would they want to?
But, nonetheless, if something is quite so iconic as Chanel and the Chanel style and brand, it is surely only natural that it will be used as a turn of phrase, n’est pas?
I decided to discuss this with the other bloggers who’d been involved in the original Friend Friday debate:
Many agreed with what I have already written above, however some came to the table with a different and thought-provoking angle.
One such opinion was voiced by Alli, of Mes Lunettes Folles, who explained; “with intellectual property disputes, it becomes harder and harder to defend your brand the more that you’ve allowed instances of it out in the market. If “Chanel” as a brand, becomes synonymous with a certain product (think, for example, of how we often use “Xerox” to refer to photocopies in general, or “Band-Aids” to describe bandages), then the name of the brand or the trademark becomes diluted to the point where prosecuting for misuse of the brand or trademarks becomes increasingly difficult.”
Another blogger pointed out that “flattery doesn’t make you money”. True. But I do believe that there are those of us – and I count myself in this – who cannot and never will be able to afford a Chanel jacket or bag or whatever but can buy into the hype of the brand through their perfumes and make-up and, of course, their nail polishes. It is a little off-putting to read this ad. Just saying.
What do you think of this thorny issue?