3 ms·
It's worth having a dialogue about this. This specific type of signaling (flashing brands) is enforced by social rules that prevent chameleons. It would be pret
by stickfigure 9y ago
It's worth having a dialogue about this. This specific type of signaling (flashing brands) is enforced by social rules that prevent chameleons. It would be pretty easy to imagine relaxing this - allowing products to appear externally in any form, as long as their nature is always recognizable to the owner (to prevent fraud). It's not clear this would be bad for society.
IANAL, but it seems to me that plastering logos all over a handbag is an abuse of trademark functionality doctrine. The function of the pattern is to make the owner appear wealthy, not to prevent buyers from being misled.
- pm90 9y agoThe purpose of brands and high fashion is not to be functional in the utilitarian sense. They are meant purely for signalling and their utility is an afterthought at best. See for e.g. women's jeans which have fake pockets. For people who care about such things, its more important for their outfit to be congruent to some fashion principles (color, fit etc.) rather than the actual utility that such things provide.
- barrkel 9y agoFashion is but the extreme end, where 90% or more of the value is created by the branding and designer cachet, but it goes all the way to much more prosaic items, like washing machines (Miele) and DIY tools (Makita), where the brand is acting much more as protection for a promise of quality, yet the branding still has pose value - showing off your middle class credentials when someone is visiting your house or borrowing your tools. I don't think there's any real cut-off point where you get to say it's an abuse, because value is whatever we humans think is valuable, whether that's high quality or socially desirable.