Sunday, November 27, 2005


You have to read this letter that my friend wrote them.

Evidently they are selling knock-off jeans and pricing them like they are the real thing.


At 9:51 PM, Blogger required said...

i'm not sure how a product that has been around longer then the "real thing" counts as a "knock-off" - care to clarify?

At 12:27 AM, Blogger Shandoll said...

Yes, now I know I am cool when I get hate comments. My poking fun of the Holocust didn't do it, but when I link to my friends' blog it happens. I am going to be more controversial in the future.

As for the 7 thing...

My question to yours: if Lane Bryant was so into this "premium" denim, wouldn't it come out and differentiate themselves from seven for all man kind? Moreover, if something sells well in Europe, it doesn't mean that the cut should sell well here. We are a bigger people than our European counterparts. Obviously, they were capitalizing on the brand recognition of seven jeans, if they weren't then they would have been selling these jeans hella sooner...I mean premium jeans that look hot on women that are bigger than size 24 waist girls?

And if I wasn't drunk and wanting to sleep, I would write more...but, uhm. I need to sleep.

At 12:42 AM, Blogger Hæ★ said...

Hey, dip shit: bugmenot. "Knock-off" shit has been around longer than almost everything, that's why it still sucks more than the "real thing." Don't you know anything about art or aesthetics? Fashion? History?

At 9:25 PM, Blogger Chelle said...

I'm all for analytical conversation, and while you do have a point BugMeNot, need you be so rude to Shandoll? She raises a valid point, as trademark and copyright law is nothing to be scoffed at (as she notes in her initial post). However, unless you are an attorney dedicated to that niche- it has little impact to the lay-consumer as evidenced by her friend's post. The lay consumer could EASILY be mislead by this type of marketing. Now whether the parent company of Lane Bryant has the legal right to mislead their customers based on copyright alone raises an interesting conflict with the First Amendment's proscription of adverstising intended to mislead. Unless you are well versed enough to have a legal discussion about trademark infringement in so far as it comports with the restrictions imposed by the first amendment, I suggest you bug off. Further, let me point out to you that your ability to browse "look smart find articles" does NOT make you more clever than our lovely blog host- shandoll.
- A loyal Fan

At 6:56 PM, Blogger required said...

While it is nice to see loyal fans circle the wagons, I didn't realize that I was being so rude to the blog-hostess. I simply put aside my outrage at Lane Bryant long enough to do some (admittedly) crude research, and then thought to pass along the information and ask for clarification. (Which I received, as she pointed out that Lane Bryant could have started offering their jeans earlier) The point I was trying to make is that the Seven for all Mankind jeans would be more accurately called knock-offs, as they didn't exist when Express (Lane Bryant's parent company) first began offering Seven7 jeans in the U.S. And you are correct, Chelle, that lay-consumers are being misled, but not by Lane Bryant, rather by Seven for all Mankind. They are the ones who are being sued for trademark infringement and misleading customers, not the other way around. Any snarkiness in my comment was intended for them, and their seeming assumption that popularity amongst the elite of our country allows them to ignore legal settlements, not for Shandoll. To Shandoll, I would like to offer my apologies if that was not clear.
If I might raise one more point before I respectfully go back to lurking and enjoying Shandoll's entertaining blog, why are you all so quick to come to the defense of Seven for all Mankind? What about a company offering jeans under an unoriginal name that most people can neither afford or fit in to has inspired such devotion? They don't have such devotion for you. This whole thread was brought about by the mistaken belief that they might care enough about bigger women, or even just simply making money off of them, to offer their jeans in larger sizes. In reality, they apparently would rather forego increased profits from an untapped demographic then to endure the ultimate horror of seeing their pretentious logo on an ass that isn't a size doule zero. Aren't they the ones who deserve your well thought out ire?
-Taylor (who apologizes for ruffling any feathers)

At 9:37 PM, Blogger MyChinadollShandoll said...

1. It just goes to show that Seven7 did a shitty job of BRANDING, ask Naomi Klien ( )

2. It seems ShanDoll's point is that Seven7 seems to now be ridding the coat tales of this company they are suing, since 7FAM is HUGE now. Of course the question is did 7FAM get huge by pretending to be Seven7, Answer that question!

3. ShanDoll's ASS looks SOOOO good in 7FAM or Seven7 jeans, I'd like to well.... we will put it in song form!

I got two pale hands up against the window pane
I'm shaking with the heat of my need again
It starts in my feet, reverbs up to my brain
There's nothing I can do to revert the gain
I'm looking down to the street below
There's nothing in the way they move to show
They too, know what I knew
They too hunger for the beast below


Post a Comment

<< Home