It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some might howl about the absurdity of incorporating fast food into runway fashion—the socially conscious accuse the high-end fashion house of mocking low-wage fast-food workers who could never afford these clothes. (For those earning an average $7.72 an hour, that dress is worth about 120 hours of work.) But the runway show was “a crowd-pleaser,” according to Style.com. Designer Jeremy Scott’s “embrace of consumer culture in the name of Moschino was bright, brash, and ingenious.” And it has attracted a lot of attention for the brand.
I guess it's all about money in the fashion world,' contended Miss Brusendorff.
McDonald's confirmed that it was unaware of Moschino's collection until the company was approached by MailOnline for comment, however it has refused to reveal whether legal action will be taken against Mr Scott’s Golden Arches-inspired interpretation of Moschino’s iconic love heart.
Under the law, a trademark identifies the source of goods and services, and differentiates them from others in the marketplace. For example, the Golden Arches identify McDonald’s as the source of its prepared meals and restaurants. The existence of marks similar to the Golden Arches, regardless of how those marks are used, would dilute the ability of the Golden Arches to identify McDonald’s as the a single source of its goods and services. Thus, the legal concept of “dilution” protects the owner of a famous trademark from the decrease in strength and value of this mark by preventing the coexistence of similar marks. This mechanism is critical to the protection of brands like McDonald’s, ranked seventh on Interbrand’s 2013 list of top global brands and valued at $42 billion.
On the other hand, McDonald’s could argue that Moschino uses the heart-shaped motif in fashion designs to draw an unflattering comparison between fast food and fast fashion. Naming the capsule collection “Fast Fashion — Next Day After The Runway” and retailing it on the day following the show both skewers the high street chains creating fast fashion and beats them at their own game, but at the expense of McDonald’s Golden Arches.
It’s likely that Moschino chose not to seek permission because the company believes that it can rely on the defense of parody, something which has artistic merit and critical function, and is covered by law. Indeed, the law does provide that a parody is an exception to dilution, but only if the defendant does not use the parody as a designation of source for its own goods and services. In other words, the exception does not apply when a parody is used as a trademark, and this is exactly what Moschino has done.