Donald Trump recycles talking points and slogans and washed up Happy Days stars.

Last edited Fri Jul 22, 2016, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

It was first shoes then the speech.

It makes all the difference.

they are designed for low cost knock-off manufacture.
Probably made in China or Vietnam.

Still fucked because of that one.

Just so I don't get accused of plagiarism or copyright infringement, a few nights ago, Rachel Maddow suggested that calling Melania Trump's speech an "homage" to Michelle Obama's might be a way out of the plagiarism charges without actually copping to cribbing. (I don't agree with Maddow on that at all. Hence, this post.)

easily recognizable as Michelle's; not.

Tsk, tsk, Rachel!

to the other manufacturer seems to have been excessive. Given the limited number of popular colors and whatevers in any one year, and the reality that there will inevitably be many similar iterations, this could probably have been entirely avoided by simply paying homage to 1 design from each of 3 different manufacturers.

that moves from one object to the next, no organic development of
product or in-house ideas, no real need for deep expertise, just make
a killing then on to the next. One deal after another.

Certainly is favorite "Hot" daughter Ivanka. She seems to be a chip off of the old block head!

skim money off the top until scam runs out and on to the next one.

always peddling something, the next Multi Level Marketing scam

In this business, out of that business

I even met a guy like that who called himself CEO, but traveled
by bus on public transit because of DUI convictions!

to give the wearer foot and back problems. There are other stylish choices that aren't damaging to one's health.

I'm beginning to wonder if there shouldn't be some sort of professional guide to making shoes that don't cripple women, that could be used like a certification.

There's nothing original about them at all. They make America copy someone else again while they take the credit.

Experienced professionals don't want to work with him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/melania-trump-speech-meredith-mciver.html

The second and third styles are nearly identical. IMO, the one thing they really have in common is they all look terribly uncomfortable to wear.

There's a better photo here: http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/aquazzura-sues-ivanka-trump-shoe-designs

Ivanka learned from the best how to scam, cheat and steal.

absolutely.

they may not be identical but certainly they are copies

Jerry Seinfeld's wife did a similar thing, she ripped off a cookbook and publishing it as her own.

too much greed and entitlement.
i guess, i mean i don't get it!

The family is only good at lending out their "prestigious" last name! and saying how great they are!

Meredith McIver

WTF?

To her, lawsuits are just another cost of doing business. One look at the pictures makes it abundantly clear that these are copies.

Unfortunately, copyright law treats virtually all clothing as functional (and not subject to protection under the copyright laws).

That's why the suit is being pursued under trademark law - which is not well a good match for preventing copying products. Trademarks are source identifiers. None of the shoe designs are registered as trade dress (they likely wouldn't qualify), so they are pursuing it under common law trade dress - a much much harder case to prove (since it is usually the route taken by marks/dress that are not eligible to be registered (presumptively not eligible for protection), and have to acquire trademark protection by being so wildly and universally recognized as identifying Aquzzura as the source of the product).

Stinks. And I don't agree that that crap is "functional," so it should be eligible for protection under the copyright law. But it isn't - so (for the most part) Ivanka can legally copy clothing design.

At least the suit shines the light of day on what she is doing.