Plus One

Showing posts with label cigarettes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cigarettes. Show all posts

Monday, 7 January 2013

Christian Louboutin, YSL Suit Dismissed



Christian Louboutin
After 18 months of legal wrangling a Manhattan federal district court entered a final order Thursday 27 December, confirming that Christian Louboutin has no further claims against Yves Saint Laurent over red monochrome shoes and dismissing the lawsuit.

You may remember from our initial posts, Louboutin Tries To Stop Dior From Making Red-Soled Shoes(July), then our follow on story, Christian Louboutin loses round one of red sole battle with Yves Saint Laurent (August) it seemed that the drama was going to continue with neither side giving in. 

It was once presumed in our UPDATE: Christian Louboutin Sues Yves Saint Laurent(July); Yves Saint Laurent may drop the case as the bad publicity that surrounded their action to inital make this attempt did them no favours within the industry. When YSL,  a month later, dropped its claims against Louboutin it came as no great surprise.

YSL Trib Too, left, and Louboutin Bambou
Earlier a New York federal appeals court in September backed the validity of Louboutin’s red-sole trademark but said the French shoemaker would only be able to protect its mark when it comes to red-soled shoes with contrasting uppers. That decision gave YSL the right to continue selling its monochrome red pump. The luxury giants squared up again and the case moved back to a New York federal district court for further evaluation of YSL’s counterclaims.

We can now report it has finally come to an official end with Thursday’s court order merely confirms closure of the litigation between the parties.

For luxury authentic products & services; http://www.luxuryonlinestore.net


RELATED ARTICLES
» Christian Louboutin Fights Dior Over Red-Soled Shoes
» Christian Louboutin Fights Carmen Steffens Red Soles
» Victory for Versace in counterfeit & fake fashion ruling
» Christian Louboutin Loses Another Red Sole Lawsuit To Zara
» Target’s Mossimo Messenger knockoff Proenza Schouler PS1 bag
» Jessica Simpson copyright Infringement with Christian Louboutin






Monday, 6 June 2011

Yves Saint Laurent Sparks Debate By Launching Cigarettes

“The woman who smokes Yves Saint Laurent cigarettes is more attractive than one who smokes another brand or doesn’t smoke at all“  claims the fashion house.

Yves Saint Laurent is taking its conception of “Le Smoking” seriously—and perhaps a tad too literally. When the French fashion house isn’t employing African artisans to cobble purses together from recycled plastic bags and fair-trade cotton, it’s also lending its moniker to a line of cigarettes. So much for social responsibility. Marketed to women in Asia and Russia, the smokes come in minimalist black boxes with gold foil. You don’t have to pony up for prestige pricing, either: On line retailers hawk the cancer sticks, which have been around since 1989, for up to £22 per 200-cigarette pack.

We all know the dangers of tobacco, the gaucheness of nicotine-stained teeth, or the idiocy of self-induced lung cancer and heart disease. The money pumped into the NHS aimed at preventing smokers from starting and assistance to stop, make it impossible for us not to know. For the less-informed, however, YSL offers a Faustian deal. Its cigarettes, according to the luxury label, creates a “sense of appeal to female vanity and thereby making the woman who chose to smoke Yves Saint Laurent cigarettes more attractive than one who smokes another brand, or more attractive than a woman who did not smoke at all.
YSL showing how 'glamorous' smoking can look!


YSL isn’t the only high-end brand to market so-called “fashion cigarettes.” Other companies known to have dabbled in the practice include Givenchy, Versace, Pierre Cardin, Christian Lacroix, and Cartier. Ironically, in a 1968 interview, Saint Laurent himself admitted he didn’t smoke his eponymous cigarettes, claiming not to “like the flavour.”

With fashion targeting the younger market, Is this fashion or irresponsibility?.........