boycotting louis vuitton for goodBy Pat Law • May 3rd, 2008 • Category: The Bitch
I recall that one time when I was in Louis Vuitton’s famous establishment located at Champs Elysées, Paris. I was strolling down the streets, soaking up the Parisian air when a couple of Chinese Nationals approached me. Do you speak Mandarin?, one of the two faces asked. Yes, I do, why? I replied with a cigarette lingering on the side of my cracked lips.
We’ll like to buy this bag from LV…
To my amusement, a LV catalogue was fished out into our conversation.
Can you help us get the bag? Here’s the cash.
To my shock, one thousand Euros were placed in my cigarette-free palm.
Why can’t you get it yourself?
They wouldn’t let us in.
I suppose any organisation can refuse entry to their premises, after all, they’re the ones paying rent. But I’d like to understand what the basis for discrimination is. And like how we boldly state “NO ANIMALS ALLOWED” at the store front, I think it is only fair that organisations to state their specific customer preference and save others the embarrassment of being rejected at the store entrance.
I haven’t got a clue why these Chinese Nationals were denied entry. Perhaps it was because they spoke Mandarin, and not English. Perhaps their appearances were telling; fake leather pouches with no other designer brand in sight. Or perhaps they should’ve uttered moshi moshi to the store manager.
I got their desired Louis Vuitton bag for them, threw my prima donna attitude on the entourage of sales people serving me at Louis Vuitton (I have powerful friends in Tiffany and Rolex with me at that point), and left the store utterly disgusted by the superficiality of this god damn society.
I have not bought a single piece of Louis Vuitton ever since, but it wasn’t quite a boycott then. I couldn’t be arsed to be affected by how superficial the society is. After all, I’m in Advertising for crying out loud. It’s my job to make you want things you don’t need. In fact, such is my detachment from the evilness of consumerism that I even thought the most recent Louis Vuitton ad campaign, shot by Annie Leibovitz, was absolutely beautiful.
And then this hits me.
Louis Vuitton sues Danish artist, Nadia Plesner for trademark infringement on her Simple Living T-shirt. where 100% of the profits from sales are donated to Divest for Darfur. Here’s the laughable quote from Louis Vuitton:
Although we applaud your efforts to raise awareness and funds to help Darfur, a most worthy cause, we cannot help noticing that the design of the Simple Living Products includes the reproduction of a bag infringing on Louis Vuitton’s Intellectual Property Rights, in particular the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore Trademark to which it is confusingly similar. We are surprised of such a promotion of a counterfeit bag.
We are surprised of such a promotion of a counterfeit bag. Right. Words cannot explain the utter disgust intoxicating my soul. It’s extremely disappointing to see a brand, once known purely for its heritage, design and quality, be overshadowed by its own arrogance. If you ask me, I’ll be embarrassed to say the least, to be associated with such a brand. No, I refuse to be caught up with such superficiality. I may be materialistic, but I like to be reminded that I am valued by my colleagues, family and friends, by my character and not the fucking Louis Vuitton bag I carry. I’m not sure if I can say for half the rude Louis Vuitton customers who aren’t even civil enough to say thank you to the waiter at the restaurant.
There you go, no more Louis Vuitton for the rest of my life.
And besides, there is always Hermès.