Shop Etsy

You be the Judge: Vuitton and Darfur

Sep 9, 2008

by Sarah Feingold handmade and vintage goods

This article was originally published on May 6, 2008. We are reviving it as part of the Best of the Storque series. Enjoy! I’ll admit it: as Etsy’s in-house attorney, I love reading legal disputes and thinking about what important issues each side should stress.  I especially like to analyze pending copyright, trademark, and patent cases.  I daydream about what points I would argue if I were the lawyer for each side and then I put on my imaginary judge’s robe and make a decision. Well, here’s your chance again.  If you were the judge, what would you decide on this real-life on-going legal battle? (Remember, this issue hasn’t gone to court yet…and it will likely be decided in a Danish — not U.S. — court).

Nadia Plesner is a Danish artist.  According to her website, the illustration “Simple Living” was inspired by “the media’s constant cover of completely meaningless things.  My thought was: Since doing nothing but wearing designer bags and small ugly dogs is enough to get you on a [magazine] cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserve and needs attention.”  One hundred percent of the profits from the Simple Living t-shirts and posters will be donated to Divest for Darfur.

In February, 2008 an attorney for Louis Vuitton Malletier (“Louis Vuitton”) sent Plesner a letter asking that she discontinue making and selling the Simple Living products.  According to Louis Vuitton, the illustration infringes on the company’s intellectual property rights, in particular the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multi-Color Trademark, to which it is confusingly similar. Plesner responded to the letter, arguing freedom of expression.  She said she will continue her Simple Living campaign in order to raise money for the victims of Darfur.  Louis Vuitton sued her and according to the company demands $7,500 for each day she continues to sell Simple Life products.  Plesner found a lawyer to represent her free of charge. UPDATE: Plesner started a Foundation to use her art to “raise funds and awareness for crisis situations/areas throughout the world, especially where children are victims.”  Plesner’s art no longer makes any references to Louis Vuitton (the bag is gone!) and she writes “[t]hank you so much for all the wonderful support of my first Simple Living campaign and the lawsuit.” Hopefully Plesner’s legal issues are a thing of the past.  However, had this case gone to a Danish court what would YOU have decided?  Was there risk of confusion?  What about the fact that Plesner is raising money for charity?  In the comments below, you be the judge! Read Sarah’s previous post in the series Apples to Apples and all her Legal Info for Artists pieces.

NOISE FOR DARFUR T-shirt Your purchase helps to make clean water accessible in Darfur SWEAT FREE
NOISE FOR DARFUR T-shirt Your purchase helps to make clean water accessible in Darfur SWEAT FREE


  • tinalewis

    tinalewis said 11 years ago

    I'm glad she found an attorney to represent her for free. I don't know Danish law but under U.S. law this could be protected as parody and I don't think it causes any confusion. If I were the Judge though I would be very receptive to the argument that it could be considered offensive or slanderous to LV, putting them in a false light. Why pick on just them? If I were her I would hold off until her lawyer tells her what to do or maybe change it. She could get the same message across without using the logo on the bag. Maybe ask them to contribute to her cause in exchange for changing it up. If you go without logos and throw in a jeweled cell phone and I would get the message.

  • juliebcreative

    juliebcreative said 11 years ago

    man...i am so sick of big business. they should just say...listen if you stop selling the shirt we'll donate a crapload of money to the charity...then everyone wins! The rich just keep getting richer...and the rest of us get sued by them.

  • pixiepine

    pixiepine said 11 years ago

    I think that she is making a strong statement, one that needs to be made. If enough people really absorbed it the message, companies like Louis Vuitton would be right to be shaking in their boots and very defensive, cuz we would all make do merrily without the wasteful brand-name industry! Yay!

  • khphillips

    khphillips said 11 years ago

    tina, that's the first thing that popped in my head - parody. For sure I'd think it'd fall under that.

  • thebeadedlily

    thebeadedlily said 11 years ago

    The lawyers at Louis Vuitton must be bored or something. It's nothing like anything I saw on their site.

  • AuntSissysAttic

    AuntSissysAttic said 11 years ago

    It very clear that Louis Vuitton is concerned with the negative image that this artwork gives them - not there actual intellectual property. It's not as thought the artist is knockoff bags seam-for-seam with their logo on it. I'm so fed-up with big design houses acting as tho they care about their actual designs - they sell an image and that's the bottom line - you can't copy right an image. So, if another artist wants to manipulate that image, more power to them. Also, this work makes you stop and think "Do I REALLY need to pick up that US Weekly?" Kudos to Plesner on stirring things up.

  • Electrastar

    Electrastar said 11 years ago

    I can't really contribute to the legal debate (daaammmmmnnnn I wish i'd taken that IP class back in law school!), but I feel if the LV lawyers had thought about it 2 seconds longer, they'd have taken another course of action. LV usually likes to be associated with comtemporary artists (that very same motif was actually designed, if i'm not mistaken, by japanese artist Murakami). Taking this to court is stressing the artist's statement and giving LV an even worse rep; twisting it so they could've been positively associated with the artist's work would have given them enormous publicity - and more $$ than they would have ever lost with this "infringement".

  • McYarnpants

    McYarnpants said 11 years ago

    She is clearly basing the bag in her illustration on a popular LV style, but I think she has a strong case for Fair Use since its parody. From what I know about copyright law, in the end, it all comes down to whether LV's lawyers can prove that Plesner is causing them harm (financial or otherwise) with this parody. What I do find odd is people's reaction to LV because they're a big company trying to protect their designs. They have just as much right to protect their designs and intellectual property as everyone else does. Their designs are well-known and easily recognizable. It's what they count on. I don't blame them trying to protect their image. I don’t know their business practices, but making popular luxury goods doesn’t make you a “bad guy”. The laws are there to protect everyone.

  • haptotrope

    haptotrope said 11 years ago

    Right. The problem is not trademark infringement, but semi-sort of artistic slander. But that is the fodder of art and political statements, and this is why the images have power to make strong statements about the state of the world.

  • puffluna

    puffluna said 11 years ago

    As much as I agree to the message that Simple Living is sending about where our priorities are, I worry that LV may have a case. It seems that claiming this is a parody would be one thing... but since it's hurting the company's image it may fall under a completely different category. I don't even really see the art as bashing LV as much as the lifestyle that many have taken to. Beyond that... the importance that we place on famous people. I like what Electrastar had to say. Wouldn't that have been a nice change of pace!? It makes me sad all around.

  • dottyral

    dottyral said 11 years ago

    Minority opinion here. I think LV's got a case. It doesn't seem right that any ol' one can re-create your bag/logo. Isn't a parody supposed to be funny? (I believe I read that in a great book called Copyright for Artists.) The use isn't funny. It can only affect LV negatively. I think if you take the emotion out of it, it's wrong.

  • haptotrope

    haptotrope said 11 years ago

    If you look at the logo on the bag carefully, it is not an LV, but an SL... I think that may save her tukus. But if she wanted to seriously make the statement, she should take an authentic LVbag to Darfur, bring a Chihuahua, and take and original photo. And bring some medical supplies while she's at it.

  • thewhimsytrove

    thewhimsytrove said 11 years ago

    Parody doesn't have to be funny-- it can be highly satirical and downright nasty. Which is probably why LV is having a hissy fit over Plesner's work. I have no idea what Danish law covers when it comes to parody. As for confusion, noone even glancing at Plesner's pic would be remotely confused, since clearly she is using LV's look-- to make a point. But she is not marketing a fake LV product. Even she made the actual bag depicted I don't know if LV would have a case, since she didn't use the LV logo at all. They certainly couldn't get her for counterfeiting. If LV was smart they would have contacted her, said Hey, how can we contribute to the cause? and gotten involved. Then perhaps she would have stopped using a LV bag look-alike and moved on to Prada.

  • elizabethplaid

    elizabethplaid said 11 years ago

    There are so many products out there, knock-offs as well as fellow designers, that use similar designs/patterns. I agree with tinalewis in that a different pattern (even without the initials) and a cell phone would've made the same statement. However, it's too late to say what could've been done; Plesner and the lawyers have to make the best of the stituation as it stands now. If either backs down on their status, it sends a message; even the case alone sends one (namely, "Is LV's motivation behind the case more than just what they state?" Alas, speculation can run rampant with this one). This is a time where I like to recall a lesson I learned in pre-school: comprimise. Someone mentioned the idea of LV saying, "Stop using the image, and we'll donate to your cause." What about even letting her use the image (her version, not LV's specific version), and LV can partner with the cause, donating a percentage of their profits (total or just profits made on a select line of products made specially for charity) to the cause? That way, LV shows the public that even the big boys can listen to the message, that such a cause cannot be ignored. As a last note, haptotrope's photograph idea is very interesting. I was thinking the same thing.

  • juln

    juln said 11 years ago

    Intriguing, but it's pretty difficult to determine what I would say as the judge in the case since my command of the details of Danish copyright law is a bit lacking.

  • roboroku

    roboroku said 11 years ago

    I agree with dottyral. It is negative publicity for Louis Vuitton. Taking the emotional element out of the issue, the LV bag should be re-designed. In an ideal situation who wouldn't want LV to jump on board with financial contributions? The design should be changed period. Using their design seems like an attack on LV, even if it's not.

  • excely

    excely said 11 years ago

    I can't say how the Danish laws will come down on this issue, but the illustrated bag is VERY EASILY confused for a very famous LV design. There is way more in common between this illustration (really, the only difference is an S instead of a V) and the LV design than there was between the apple logos in the last 'you be the judge' I saw. Unfortunately too, cases like these are not decided based on what many think would be the RIGHT (morally speaking) thing for LV to do...

  • eclipse

    eclipse said 11 years ago

    I think the artwork would be just as effective if she used a more generic bag design with a fake logo that didn't resemble LV so much. It would just stand for all those logo-covered handbags like Dooney & Burke, Coach, etc. The point would still be made without using an exact recognizable LV bag design.

  • Ekioart

    Ekioart said 11 years ago

    I can see one of the big reasons she went with that pattern/color base. She wanted the bag to stand out boldly. While I didn't focus on the pattern of the bag I did note in my head that it was a LV pattern when I first saw the picture. So I'm a little on the fence here. I feel like a. it is a parody of sorts. It could have been done with an ostrich or alligator pattern in a bold color, but it wouldn't have immediately brought to mind a major designer. I would bet this comes down to a large settlement by LV as a donation to charity but it all really comes down to Danish laws. Interesting case for sure.

  • quirke

    quirke said 11 years ago

    I don't know what Danish law says about copyright, so I'll address it as if it was a U.S. case. ------------------ § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. --------------------------- So... (1) The purpose of the use is non-profit and I suspect educational, not commercial. (2) It's a bag. I would guess that the print is the copyrighted part, rather than the shape of the bag. Is it a recognizable print? I wouldn't know it as Louis Vuitton just by looking at it. I'm really not sure how widely recognizable a print it is. Or perhaps I'm alone in not being educated on the prints of high-end fashion designers. (3) Is the bag a substantial portion of the work? This is rather subjective. You could argue that the focus of the piece is the child, and that the bag is not integral to the meaning of the piece (i.e. you could replace the bag with a fancy watch or jewellery and it would make the same point), or you could argue that the image of the bag is vitally important to the parody. I'm inclined to argue the former, as I think the bag could have been replaced by other items and the same point would have been made. The LV bag is merely symbolic of wealth and status and not meant as literal. (4) Is this piece going to damage LV's profits? Again, hard to know. Surely their lawyers would argue, yes. I personally find it difficult to believe that the items being sold for charity would actually impact LV's bottom line. It's not as though the art is somehow slanderous. IMO, LV is overreaching and stepping on the toes of freedom of expression. The piece is clearly intended as commentary, the LV bag is not integral to the commentary, the LV reputation is not harmed by incorporating the image of the bag, and the artist isn't personally profiting by use of the image of the bag.

  • jellibat

    jellibat said 11 years ago

    interesting. as an artistic idea i think this is quite a striking image, and of course expresses the artist intent perfectly. they have guilty conscience perhaps? of course any of those big name designers items could have been inserted, a chanel, prada, etc .. would have the same effect. i guess its unlucky they chose this certain iconic bag in the work. I wonder would those other labels have had the same (I think extreme and ridiculous) reaction to the work if they had been drawn instead. would LV cared at all if an artist had painted a certain skinny blonde woman naked with a parody design bag and small dog? it is also interesting to note that "parody" or "homage" by other artists of this Louis Vitton design doesn't seem to have caused a similar reaction from the designer label. just look for Wim Delvoys tattooed pigs whom are live real pigs tattooed with the instantly recognisable pattern, apparantly this artists even plans to make bags of of the pig skins later on. Photographer Dave LaChapelle made a work where he photographed Lil Kim, naked but covered in fake tattoos of the iconic LV design. all these artists are making artistic statements on the percieved prestige of the label and the iconic nature of the design.

  • crittyandzoe

    crittyandzoe said 11 years ago

    I think it is a fantastic and needed statement by the artist. I think it took great courage from within to even face a problem of that magnitude and emotionality. I don't think that anyone has the right to stifle an artist's expression no matter how disturbing the message. No one, not even a multi-billion dollar company, has the right to do what LV is doing. Art is not necessarily about getting everyone to agree with what you're trying to convey. To me, art should provoke strong reactions ... so actually, LV is doing the artist a favor by calling even more attention to her work. In the political world it has always been said that bad press is much better than no press at all. I stand up and say BRAVO and I will soon be the proud new owner of a Nadia Plesner t-shirt!

  • excely

    excely said 11 years ago

    I have thought about this more... Now I understand that the imagery is not necessarily intended to be a negative commentary on LV, but on the media for showcasing the likes of Paris Hilton, when there are truly needy people who could use the media intention. Now, the artist most certainly chose the LV design for the bag because it is easily recongnizable and is associated with wealth. Would the image work as well with another, less obviously designer, bag? I'm not sure it would, because something less obvious may not as easily bring to mind the media darlings that the artist is trying to lampoon. Could the image as is be perceived/mistaken as a negative commentary on LV itself? Quite possibly. For these reasons, I do think that LV has a case.

  • neile

    neile said 11 years ago

    If the Plesner piece was simply a work on canvas would it be a concern for LV? When she starts putting the image onto t-shirts and posters, it crosses a line from art into commerce (even if the proceeds go to chartiy). I wonder if there is a difference in allowing freedom of speech in something that will hang in a museum, or something that is widly available for purchase.

  • FireHazardBeads

    FireHazardBeads said 11 years ago

    well, law in europe is not so bad as it is in the and definitly i guess that a judge does not go an pass that claim to the good for LV it is art. even printet on shirts. still art. the bag and also the dog is not paintet on to make an profite out of the bag. it is not real an bag, it is an painting and you can not habve this painting used like the bag can be all art also is commerce, the commerce aspect starts in the moment we put an price tag on and have the pieces for sale. otherwise we just could give them away for and my personal opinion is... what does LV want? they have no damage, no lost, no nothing... it is art ... and it have an saying... and in 30 years it may hangs in an LV museum...

  • TerraScents

    TerraScents said 11 years ago

    It is clearly a parody. Kudos to the artist!!

  • sparklecity

    sparklecity said 11 years ago

    My 1st thought was, if they purchased an authentic LV bag, it's up to them what they do with it.. however, if you take a moment and look at the bag in the photo, it's obviously FAKE!! Therefore Louis Vuitton ABSOLUTELY 100% has the right to demand they NOT infringe upon their trademarked/copyrighted items. I am sure Louis Vuitton spends MILLIONS AND MILLIONS to PROTECT THEIR products/images.. and while the image above is being used for non profit.. where should Vuitton draw the line? A copyright is a copyright.. period!!! So, I say, MAKE THEM REMOVE THE IMAGE! P.S.. "Simple Living" or ANY non profit company should at least request to use such images directly to Louis Vuitton.. That's my 2 cents! :)

  • Carolineart

    Carolineart said 11 years ago

    What would have been totally cool would be if Louis Vuitton would have recognized this as parody and suggested shelling out some of the contents of those bags for the hungry would be a good thing, providing an example themselves. They should, of course, go after all those people producing rip off bags who are the real violators. I don't think her image could hurt their business one iota, but their attack on the project might have.

  • RagnazIdnar

    RagnazIdnar said 11 years ago

    Isn't the design on the bag partially the property of Takashi Murakami- the artist who originally deisgned the pattern? His reason behind creating artwork like bags for LV and CD covers for people like Kanye West is so everyone can own a piece of art. A LOT of artists use LV as a subject in their work, and LV uses a lot of artists- including Murakami, Beecroft, and others- as a way to gain attention for their stores. Seems kinda hypocritical to me. In contemporary art, appropriation is not uncommon and in this case it is for something much more admirable than the artist's own pleasure. It is hard to draw the line between copyright infringement and parody. Both have valid points, so good luck to whoever sorts this mess out!

  • simplebasics

    simplebasics said 11 years ago

    I think it makes a derogatory statement to the bag designer, as if they themselves have contributed to the suffering in Darfur. It was not OK to obviously single them out and use their design in a hugely emotional/political campaign, and the simple living illustration does just that. A generic looking handbag would have had the same impact and I feel this would have been in better taste. Having said that, I admire simple living's agenda to help the people of Darfur.

  • HappyKnot

    HappyKnot said 11 years ago

    Giving the original artist of the designs you are using the choice to participate in your campaign is better than using their designs without their knowledge or permission. The laws don't change just because you want to use someone else's designs for charity. It should not matter if it was a self employed freelancer or a large company.


    GUGAW said 11 years ago

    brilliant statement and awesome artwork, i love it! BUT.... the bag clearly was confusing similar (i didn't realise the logo was different until pointed out in the article) and surely copy right infringement is the case whether proceedings are donated to charity or not....?

  • JustJaye

    JustJaye said 11 years ago

    I live by a simple credo: Don't steal. Not money, time, possessions, lives, creativity, intellect or energy. While I understand the artist's intentions, it still doesn't give her the right to steal the reputation the Louis Vuitton has earned for itself. How this will play out in a court of law, I have no idea. Were it me judging based on right and wrong, I'd tell the artist to cease and desist.

  • whynottsewn

    whynottsewn said 11 years ago

    i agree that LV has influenced their own negative image or publicity related to Plesner's work by bringing court action against her. I feel it rather points negativly toward those that spend ridiculous amounts of money on the bag and then get publicity because they are drenched in big ticket items such as the bags. it's exciting for people to see the stars wearing these things that cost a month's salary. and it's depressing to see the children of darfur. and the distinction of the LV design is perfect, because it immediately represents money. i love the statement she is making, and the way she has gone about it. i know my opinion here has no legal backing or influence, but i can't help focusing on the emotion of it all.

  • remarkablebird

    remarkablebird said 11 years ago

    After a few years of working in Licensing and trying to protect the intellectual property of a well know non-profit organization I learned A LOT on how to protect my art as well as respect the art and copyrights of those around me. Big business or small doesn't matter if you don't want others infringing on your creativity and uniqueness then don't by any means infringe on others despite it being for Charity. If you want to do something have the big business help you out, get their ok and work together. Otherwise find a another way. I have been reading a lot in the fashion news that big companies like LVMH, Burberry, and Dior are all going after anyone they feel is using their intellectual property and they have every right. And vise verse I also read about a photographer suing Dior for copying their very unique style and winning. It goes both ways. I am really surprised at a lot of the comments here. It's important we all keep our copyright not just big companies. Loads to be learned here. Food for thought, would anyone posting here today want their amazing talent and art ridiculed to help sell an idea?

  • aromaticbodyoils

    aromaticbodyoils said 11 years ago

    Louis Vuitton makes me sick! Even when I am able to afford buying their overpriced pieces of painted canvas (the only leather parts of the bags are the trim that turn patina over time.) Why pay that much for painted canvas? So many of us are so into all these fashion trends and we make these companies richer and richer, while people all over the world are dieing of starvation and disease. I never hear anything about LV making a donation to anyone, only lining their own pockets. Its no wonder there are replicas running rampant! They design those bags for one class of people only, and price them so that the "rifraf" cannot afford to wear them, or spoil their image. Same goes for other companies such as Hermes. I literally get sick when I hear about another celebrity purchasing a $5000 Hermes purse. For what?! You can't take that crap with you when you die! But you can leave the legacy of helping someone from another part of the world who just might have a chance at survival if you helped out. Stop the madness! Hermes once tried to make the French government change their laws so that their employees could work more hours a week and pump out more bags so they could make more money. Talk about selfish! I do not think this artist should have had to stop putting the Murakami bags into her pictures. It is such a recognized icon that people would instantly recognize it. Had LV been an American company she would have been able to fight with her freedom of expression. To heck with LV, we don't need them! Selfish greedy overpricing companies do not get my respect or my hard earned cash.

  • aromaticbodyoils

    aromaticbodyoils said 11 years ago

    SOrry double post! I meant to say why pay that much for painted canvas that is not a piece of original artwork, one of a kind?

  • aromaticbodyoils

    aromaticbodyoils said 11 years ago

    Perhaps the point of using the LV bag in her art was to make LV wake up and see that maybe they could help the impoverished people around the world. Alas, the message flew right over their heads. With all the money in this world, there should not be one starving or dieing person out there. The earth has to be balanced. If their are people dieing in big numbers or starvation and illness in one part of the world, we are pretty silly to assume that it does not affect or or will not eventually affect us in other parts of the world.

  • aromaticbodyoils

    aromaticbodyoils said 11 years ago

    "If there" Sorry, I really should not be up this early.

  • AutumnLeavesJewelry

    AutumnLeavesJewelry said 11 years ago

    Looks like Plesner forced the issue. Looks like "LV" realized he a-"LV" had to give in because this type of publicity would possibly ruin the "LV" name b-"LV" has a huge heart and decided to overlook her infiltration tactics and work with her and rise above I'm all for spreading the wealth, so I have no problem with what Plesner did. That said, if I were "LV", actually in his shoes, what would I really think? Don't know, I don't have that kind of money/power. I hope Dave Eggers sees this, his book 'What is the What' is incredible.

  • catdancingranch

    catdancingranch said 11 years ago

    Aaarghhh. Actually, I'm tickled to see this issue surface, although I sympathize with the artist involved in the controversy. All I can say is "Blender Barbie". More specifically, "Food Chain Barbie". Making an artistic statement, a social commentary, using contemporary artifacts doesn't represent copyright/trademark infringement. Amen. In 1999, photographer Tom Forsythe was sued by Mattel over his use of Barbie dolls in his "Food Chain Barbie" series. Personally, I love the photos. I'd like to do a "Bible Barbie" myself. In December 2003, Mattel lost the lawsuit. "Fair Use" prevailed. Enough said. To view Tom Forsythe's work, go to: To read about Mattel's lawsuit against Tom Forsythe, go to:

  • seaspray

    seaspray said 11 years ago

    I agree with the idea that the big and well-to-do company should make a large contribution (probably cheaper than hiring a lawyer) and again ask that the bag be replaced by another item, or simply chage the designs on the bag. I do not think the artist should make the design look so much like an original. That is plagarism. Simple. But really, any big co. should work on the side of charity to avoid bad press.

  • kathiroussel

    kathiroussel said 11 years ago

    if you google "appropriation" and read the wikipedia "personal appeal from Wikipedia founder Jimi Whales" you can see the variety of judgments arrived at in court for the various instances where artists were sued for infringement, along with the seemingly endless list of artists that have appropriated images throughout the history of art-- especially so in the realm of contemporary art. It sheds a fair amount of light on both circumstances and unique situations which called on the legal system for clarity. One of the most interesting cases is that of artist Sherry Levine who photographed photos of Walker Evans'-- as a statement about appropriation--- I don't think it could get any more confusing than that! We live in a culture and period where images flood our everyday experience on a constant basis. It hardly seems reasonable to imagine that the domain of the visual can be or should be tamed and controlled. Lois Vuitton is big enough and wealthy enough to be able to afford to allow such a small, peripheral blip to exist without needing to go into battle over it! I'm sure the kind of woman who regularly sports a Vuitton bag and a small lap dog isn't about to stop buying Vuitton because of Simple Living Products--- Most likely this is a person who doesn't even know Darfur exists-- or if they do know of it, may not give a rats ass. LV knows who their customers are--- what an incredible waste of time, & resources which could be better used for the issue at hand--- funding & helping those in need of assistance.

  • VibrantTrains

    VibrantTrains said 9 years ago

    I totally understand her parody, however I do feel that using a designers (similar) logo was inappropriate. Maybe just using the shape of something like a Hermes Birkin bag would have done the trick without using any logos. Would of had more of a statement when you consider the pricetag. Range $3k to $67K. Now that is an impact for donation!!!! Good luck on her fight for the cause.

  • Google said 4 years ago

    Google Here are a number of the web pages we suggest for our visitors.

Sign in to add your own