Filed under: Competitive strategy, Marketing and advertising, Limited Brands (LTD), Small business
If the current rash of courtroom events surrounding Victoria’s Secret is what CEO Sharen Turney had in mind when she indicated that the company might have become “too sexy”, I think there may be trouble in store for that flagship name of Limited Brands Inc. (NYSE: LTD). I don’t know about you, but I find courtroom litigation anything but sexy. Unless of course, we’re talking about the assistant district attorneys they cast for Law and Order.
First, Victoria’s Secret pulled an ‘Atomic Wedgie” on Kentucky couple, Victor and Cathy Moseley, by gaining a court order to block the couple from using a truncated version of The Victoria’s Secret name. It’s no big deal really because it was fairly obvious that the names “Victor’s Secret” and “Victor’s Little Secret” were pretty flagrant abuses of a trademarked name which deserves secure protection. The one little triumph which came out of that decade-long legal tussle was that the court determined that plaintiffs in trademark infringement cases do not need to show that the infringement actually cost them money, as revealed in a decidedly not sexy Associated Press news blurb.
Next, we find out that Juicy Couture has grabbed Victoria’s Secret by the seat of the pants, regarding alleged product marketing infringement. It seems that Juicy thinks that Vicky has infringed on various aspects of packaging, color schemes and logo placement, as explained by blogger Bruce Watson. Personally, I haven’t analyzed the claimed offenses. I’ll leave that to the courts. I do however find the whole thing to be a bit blown out of proportion — and very un-sexy.
Finally, an MSNBC report briefly examines a trademark complaint against Victoria’s Secret by Sexy Hair Concepts. In that fight, Victoria’s Secret has now launched a challenge against a federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruling in favor of Sexy Hair Concepts LLC. The whole matter centers around the word “sexy” and who has the right to use that word for advertising purposes and/or how it might be used. Victoria’s Secret claims that the word sexy does not attach to brand recognition in the minds of but a few consumers, and the company cites a study it conducted of 308 hair product purchasers. Victoria’s Secret states that only 5 of the 308 individuals studied, associated the word sexy with a specific company’s products. So, I guess “sexy” is fair game for anyone, in a manner of talking.
I’ll tell you my friends, the whole thing is not very sexy to me. If Victoria’s Secret’s Turney wanted to reduce the company’s level of sexiness, she sure got her wish without even trying. All this bickering and finger wagging has really turned me off of the company. In a consumer environment where frilly, lacy and high end garments are low on the priority list, this just isn’t the best time for Victoria’s Secret to have legal briefs be the only briefs the company is making news with. If Victoria’s Secret wants my thought, right about now a good dose of real sexy is exactly what the company needs. All this courtroom banter is just leaving me out in the cold.
Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
Entries (RSS)