Posts In "Fashion"

This is all about Fashion.

Art Within Art Within Art

My brother, who runs a t-shirt company out of my parents’ garage, recently told me an interesting story about a $680 t-shirt designed by American fashion designer Marc Jacobs.  Yes, you heard me.  A $680 t-shirt.  Singular.

While some may call it sybaritism, T-Shirt Magazine advises:  “[i]f you’re ballin’ you probably have a few expensive t-shirts in your collection.”  And “[a] super expensive shirt is a must have for any collection.”  (Far be it for us to question the wisdom and expertise of T-Shirt Magazine on such matters.)  So who can you turn to, to fill that voluptuary void in your wardrobe?

Enter Marc Jacobs. 

Marc Jacobs is the head designer for the eponymous Marc Jacobs fashion line (not to be confused with his diffusion line — i.e., way to squeeze more money from people with less of it — Marc by Marc Jacobs).  In addition to being the creative director of Louis Vuitton since 1997, Marc Jacobs made Time Magazine’s 2010 Time 100 list of the 100 most influential people in the world and ranked 12th on Out Magazine’s 2011 list of “50 Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America.”  (And you thought Hansel was so hot right now.)

While my wife would probably sell our firstborn child to have a shopping spree in Marc Jacobs’ boutique, I have absolutely no interest in fashion, design, or hedonistic clothing.  But when a graffiti vandal artist named “Kidult” tagged Marc Jacobs’ SoHo boutique with the word “ART” in hot pink spray-paint, tweeted about it “I did some ART?”, and drew Jacobs and at least one other designer into a surreal t-shirt-battle, I discovered a story that even the most fashion-backward among us can find amusing.

Continue reading the full story . . . »

Warner Bros. Dropkicks Louis Vuitton’s Lawsuit Over The Hangover: Part II

Louis Vuitton has been busy practicing all kinds of legal kung fu in court lately.

First, it unleashed a Chuck Norris-like flurry of legal roundhouse kicks to the dome upon hundreds of counterfeiters in the form of hundreds of injunctions and even a $3 million dollar judgment.

Then, in March, a federal district court in New York found Hyundai liable to Louis Vuitton for trademark dilution, based on a thirty-second television commercial called “Luxury.” The Luxury commercial showed “policemen eating caviar in a patrol car; large yachts parked beside modest homes; blue-collar workers eating lobster during their lunch break; a four-second scene of an inner-city basketball game played on a lavish marble court with a gold hoop; and a ten-second scene of [a Hyundai] Sonata driving down a street lined with chandeliers and red-carpet crosswalks.” The Luxury ad sought to “redefine the concept of luxury by communicating to consumers that the Sonata offered ‘luxury for all.’” But within the “four-second scene” of an inner-city basketball game, it showed — for one second — a basketball with Louis Vuitton’s famous “toile monogram” (pictured left). Based on that one second of footage, Louis Vuitton established liability for trademark dilution.

Finally, after beating up on Hyundai, Louis Vuitton attempted to leverage its victory in its ongoing dispute with Warner Bros., over the use of knock-off Louis Vuitton luggage that appeared in a twenty-five second clip in The Hangover: Part II.

But Warner Bros., like Bruce Lee, does not succumb to roundhouse kicks to the dome so easily.

Continue reading the full story . . . »

No Dogs on the Table, Please

If you’re like me, every once in a while, you see an adorable-looking dog and just say to yourself, “Oh dogs, gotta love ‘em.”  And, if you’re like me and live in Los Angeles, you occasionally follow that by saying to yourself, “What the…?!  Can that adorable-looking dog really be standing in the middle of this [department store/market/restaurant]?”  Singer/reality star/(alleged) plastic surgery cautionary tale Aubrey O’Day recently brought that question to the front of many people’s minds, with her decision to allow her dogs to sit on the tables at local brunch spot Toast reportedly triggering a city Health Department investigation.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an avid animal lover.  I even wanted to be a vet in high school, when I was trying to “find” myself.  But anytime I see a starlet with a pink-clad Chihuahua (or three) sticking out of her purse, I can’t help but ask how pets have managed to become people’s latest accessory, going almost everywhere with their owners (if the word “owner” makes you cringe, I apologize in advance, but that’s a legal term and not intended to hurt the feelings of any animals reading this blog).   And aside from people’s disapproving glares, are there any limits to where your favorite celebrities (and you) can bring their pets? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Oh Dakota! Why Can’t We Keep Our Dirty Eyes Off You?

The first time I saw Dakota Fanning’s now-infamous ad for Marc Jacobs’ new Oh Lola! fragrance was on the back of a Cosmopolitan resting in the hands of my 19-year old baby sister. My immediate reaction was “OMG…is that Dakota Fanning?! No way she’s grown up that fast!” Then my gaze shifted to the circus-caliber trait that Dakota and I happen to have in common (no, it’s not our shocking good looks) — double-jointed elbows. (God, I love it when celebrities are weird like me.)


At no point in my perusal of the ad did it even cross my mind that it was too provocative, or, as the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (or ASA) deemed it — right before they decided to ban it altogether — “likely to cause serious offense.” Clearly, like most Americans, my virgin eyes were long ago deflowered by the ubiquitous sextravagent media, and my tolerance for the “sexually provocative” has been fully developed since adolescence. Even taking a closer gander, I’m still unsure what all the fuss is about: pretty in pink lies the acclaimed child star who grew up right before my very eyes, seductively poised with a perfume bottle sculpted in the shape of a flower perched precariously (and euphemistically) between her upper thighs. (No rhyme intended. It’s not my fault Dakota’s soothing quasi-innocence makes me wax poetic. Blame Marc Jacobs.)

Whether the Brits’ better-developed campaign for a cleaner consciousness is a product of American overexposure to a steady stream of underage girls prancing around in mini-skirts and flaunting what their mommas (very recently) gave them, or a function of their more tightly-regulated media environment, I couldn’t help but think: what would the law say if Americans decided to summon the same outrage over Dakota’s Oh Lola! pose as the British censors apparently had? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Losing all Faith in Love (and Reality Television)

I tried, Law Law Land readers, I really, really tried. I struggled, but alas, I was not strong enough to stop myself from writing about the Kardashian divorce.

The 72-day marriage (if it can even be called that) of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries (herein referred to as “KK,” or maybe “666” would be more appropriate), is chock full of legal issues. What about the prenuptial agreement? (“Ironclad,” I’m sure, but speculation is already swirling about whether Kim’s “shady behavior” has rendered it “worthless.”) What to do with the gifts? (Apparently Kim is donating $200,000 to charity in lieu of returning the gifts. I’m sure the people who bought her the $375 candy jar, or $6,500 vase, or $1,250 serving spoon, or $1,600 teapot, or $840 ashtray are thrilled about that decision and the tax write off she gets. And no, I did not make up those items or prices). Why isn’t gay marriage legal and this is? (Beats me, but it really makes you think about that whole “sanctity of marriage” argument.)

No, you aren’t having a stroke, it really is that big and shiny.

But the burning issue I want to write on? What happens to THE RING? (I think the 20.5-carat sparkler deserves all-caps treatment.) Continue reading the full story . . . »

Panties in a Twist

Sometimes mistakes are made by accident. Sometimes mistakes are made on purpose (which, I guess, makes them not really mistakes). And sometimes, mistakes are made by, um, stupidity. File this one under stupid.

The Attorney General of the Navajo Nation recently sent Urban Outfitters a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that the corporation stop using the Navajo Nation’s trademarks to sell clothing and accessories that are completely unrelated to the Navajo people. Urban Outfitters’ (extremely tasteful) line of 24 “Navajo”-themed items included such surefire crowd-pleasers (pictured below) as the “Navajo Hipster Panty” and the Navajo flask — especially charming, I’m sure, to a Native American community that has long struggled with alcoholism and whose alcohol-related mortality rate is nearly 12%. Or maybe the style-makers at UO just hadn’t heard.

Just a few items from Urban Outfitters’ site described as “Navajo."

But Urban Outfitters’ “Navajo” product line wasn’t just culturally insensitive (not to mention egregiously ugly). It was also probably a violation of both trademark law and the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. Continue reading the full story . . . »

WP Like Button Plugin by Free WordPress Templates