babble » blogs » Strollerderby
Strollerderby
Gucci Kid Can’t Use His Name
THE Gucci whose name is all over your purse (or in my case, all over my much richer friends’ purses) is dead, but a kid several generations down the line has just learned she can’t use his name anymore.
Or else.
The former wife of Guccio Gucci’s grandson Paolo (she filed for divorce in the nineties) went into business with daughter Gemma Gucci, using their last name. But according to the Wall Street Journal, the House of Gucci said no dice, taking them to court and winning on the basis that the last name has been trademarked – and anyone marketing products under the name would be confusing customers.
Apparently, they didn’t want us buying coffee, bedding, housewares, cosmetics, hosiery, handbags, wine and gelato thinking we were buying real Gucci goodies (no word on whether they thought this was better or worse than the folks currently buying Cucci bags from the street vendor and adding the extra line with magic marker . . . you know who you are).
Paolo’s dead, and he had a falling out with the family BEFORE then. But Gemma’s his kid, and she came about the last name through no fault of her own.
There’s obviously super huge bucks at stake here (no one is going to come calling for the name “Sager” any time soon, sadly), and there’s no doubt this kid was cashing in on the family name to make a buck. But isn’t that sort of earned?
It seems strange to consider passing a name down to your child, then yanking back the rights to use that name . Isn’t that part of what we give our kids? Our last name to bring it forth into the future, to continue the line.
Go Back To Strollerderby
0 Comments
Lisa commented on Aug 10 09 at 4:32 pmA man whose last name was Nissan registered a website for his family business. (He was Jewish I believe and Nissan is a month in the Hebrew calender). Nissan, the automaker, sued him over the website.
I don’tknow how that turned out.
PlumbLucky commented on Aug 11 09 at 8:03 amWell, technically, they aren’t telling her that she cannot use her name. They’re saying she cannot profit by using her name, which happens to be trademarked. And I can kind of see that…she’s using it to her advantage (would we consider buying something if it were called, oh, I don’t know, Gemma as opposed to Gucci?) I doubt that there’d be a question if it weren’t a name but a run of the mill non-moniker trademark.
patricia commented on Aug 11 09 at 10:23 amIt also looks to me as though there is a lot of overlap between what she wants to make and what the Gucci fashion house makes. It would be different if she were selling, I don’t know, Gucci tech support, or Gucci kitchen sinks. But to sell Gucci handbags- no, not THAT Gucci- I can see how there is trademark infringement there.
Add your take:
Note: Babble is a supportive, diverse community. We encourage a range of opinions,
but any unduly hostile comments will be removed.
Comments are delayed up to 15 minutes
Joslyn Gray 
Amber Doty 
Julianna Miner 
Monica Bielanko 
Sierra Black 
Meredith Carroll 
Carolyn Castiglia 
Sunny Chanel 
Madeline Holler 
Wendy Michaels 
Rebecca Odes 
Danielle Smith 
Danielle Sullivan 
Katherine Stone 
The Walt Disney Company supports Babble as a platform dedicated to honest, engaged, informed, intelligent and open conversation about parenting. However, the opinions expressed on this site are those of individual parents/writers and do not reflect the views of Disney. In addition, content provided on this site is for entertainment or informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or safety advice.
0