Fashion brands take their trademarks very seriously. It wasn’t long ago that Christian Louboutin was battling YSL over a trademark issue. That war was technically won by Louboutin where the court ruled that the shoe brand had the right to trademark protection over the famous red soles.
FASHIONFOCUS
Chanel fights Australian chocolate companyto protect perfume No 5.
Fashion brands take their trademarks very seriously. It wasn’t long ago that Christian Louboutin was battling YSL over a trademark issue. That war was technically won by Louboutin where the court ruled that the shoe brand had the right to trademark protection over the famous red soles.
The latest brand war taking place is between luxury brand Chanel, and an Australian chocolate company by Allison Peck called Chocolate @ No.5.
Even if one isn’t familiar with the world of fashion, they must have heard of Chanel’s iconic perfume, No 5, which has been in production since 1921. Therefore Peck claims that Chanel asked her to withdraw her registration and redesign the logo, according to The Fashion Law.
However, in a statement given to Vogue, Chanel cleared out its stance over the matter, stating that the issue has been misrepresented in the press.
“Chanel would like to comment on some of the current press reports regarding Ms Peck’s Chocolate @ No. 5 trade mark applications as they do not accurately reflect the facts,” a brand spokesperson said.
“Chanel is always mindful of the need to balance the protection of its trade mark rights with the rights of others to trade freely. That is why Chanel did not object to Ms Peck’s application to register the word mark: Chocolate @ N°5 for chocolate drinks and various chocolate food products - biscuits, confectionery etc.
Chanel’s main concern was that Ms Peck was also using and had applied to register as a trade mark the No.5 label in a strikingly similar black and white font for perfumed candles. Chanel only asked Ms Peck to withdraw the label applications and that over time she reduce the font size of No.5 on her labelling. Ms Peck agreed. She is therefore free to regist Chocolate @ N°5. Chanel has tried to be conciliatory, looking at all times for a mutually acceptable solution and regrets that Ms Peck felt the need to re-brand her business, which was not our intention.”
Peck refuses to drop the number from their name. “That was when I realised I was being bullied,” she told the Sydney Morning Herald.
“They don’t own the number five. Never mind that China is churning out counterfeit Chanel at a rate of knots. I was not trying to pass off my chocolates as being Chanel No.5. That’s just silly because it’s chocolate.”
– With additionalinformation from Vogue.com
