I should Coco. Why Chanel is the brand that must not be named.

Looks like I’m not the only one feeling totally Chanel-ed out. The multi-national company were Chanel-ling a bit of the old Mademoiselle this week as they put out a tight little reminder in Women’s Wear Daily that, darlings, there is only one Chanel.

Apparently fashion journos are now so universally braindead that they have forgotten where their Shift->F7 buttons are and taken to simply adding the word ‘Chanel’ onto a variety suffixes in order to describe everything since… well, Chanel.

This worrying bout of Chanel-ism has prompted the company to issue the following:

“A note of information and entreaty to fashion editors, advertisers, copywriters and other well-intentioned mis-users of our Chanel name: Chanel was a designer, an extraordinary woman who made a timeless contribution to fashion. Chanel is a perfume. Chanel is modern elegance in couture, ready-to-wear, accessories, watches and fine jewelry. Chanel is our registered trademark for fragrance, cosmetics, clothing, accessories and other lovely things. Although our style is justly famous, a jacket is not ‘a Chanel jacket’ unless it is ours, and somebody else’s cardigans are not ‘Chanel for now.’ And even if we are flattered by such tributes to our fame as ‘Chanel-issime,  Chanel-ed, Chanels, and Chanel-ized’, PLEASE DON’T. Our lawyers positively detest them. We take our trademark seriously. 


 Chanel, Inc.”

Yikes. In the meantime, if you’ve spotted any Chanel-o-grams, be sure to send ‘em our way…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: