Facebook to staff: Avoid company-branded clothing for own safety

Re:Facebook to staff: Avoid company-branded clothing for own... by Cthulhu_ on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @07:39AM (#25746034)

For the most overt ones - prime example is Louis Vuitton - it's about protecting their design. That is, you cannot copyright or patent a design (e.g. the cut of clothing), but what they did instead is plaster their things with iconography that CAN be trademarked.

Basically they made their brand / labels part of the "identity" of the outfit. I mean you can get a $5 or a $50 or a $500 polo shirt, for the most part they'll be the same but the more expensive ones will have the alligator or guy on a horse on them. The practical differences between them are minimal, and in terms of production it's a few dollars (at most) difference.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Facebook to staff: Avoid company-branded clothing for own... by waterfowl on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @11:42AM (#25749340)

LV stuff being leather the costs of an equivalent quality knockoff(if such a thing exists) aren't dirt cheap like cotton. The heavily branded stuff(monogram canvas) tends to be on the lower end, entry level luxury aimed at a more aspirational purchaser.

Upper end LV and more expensive luxury leather good concerns are more understated, sort of a 'if you know you know' thing -- Hermes, Celine, Bottega maybe, etc. A Birkin in a non exotic leather with normal hardware is not a very flashy loud bag(unless you know it). There's still a lot of status signaling and striver insecurity in this(it is fashion after all) but it's slightly more covert and these people are nominally concerned about ostentatious branded stuff being 'tacky.' The social ideal is less about flashy spending and more imitating serious old money who "just want to pay for the highest quality"(though this is, imo, fiction). Can't look like you're trying.

[ Parent | on HN ]