VanillaAlmond
Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2014
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 13
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
My roommate interviewed Dapper Dan. He's a pretty awesome dude http://www.vice.com/read/dapper-dan-thinks-kanye-west-is-doing-it-wrong
I read this interview a while ago. Great stuff. Dapper Dan was the legend.. We can only assume, what was going on in his boutique in the 80s..My roommate interviewed Dapper Dan. He's a pretty awesome dude
http://www.vice.com/read/dapper-dan-thinks-kanye-west-is-doing-it-wrong
How is this not a trademark infringement suit already?"Pure Blue" Uniqlo items are not actually a collab with PBJ
"Pure Blue" Uniqlo items are not actually a collab with PBJ
"Dear all,
Since yesterday, we have been receiving many inquiries from different parts of the world regarding UNIQLO's pure blue collection.
Please be informed that we do not have business relationship with UNIQLO, and we are not involved with their project or production in any way.
We appologize for the confusion.
Your continued support will be greatly appreciated.
Best Regards, Kozue Tamura"
How is this not a trademark infringement suit already?
IDK I've seen some pretty nuttily generic stuff approved for trademarks. According to the internet PBJ actually is trademarked in Japan but not in the U.S. -- they operate internationally as Syoaiya Ltd. I don't know if they applied for TM in the States and were denied or they just never bothered to apply for one, but Uniqlo's PBJ release was U.S.-only, which would at least hint at them being aware of the potential confusion.The phrase "pure blue" would be hard to trademark in any context. Also, one company is huge, the other, tiny.