Tess Holliday talks Dior, Chanel and Britney Spears while going on a luxury shopping spree

]

Our team is dedicated to finding and telling you more about the products and deals we love. If you love them too and decide to purchase through the links below, we may receive a commission. Pricing and availability are subject to change.

Model, podcaster and body-positive activist Tess Holliday treats herself to a little self-care shopping spree in this episode of In The Know’s Bag Secured.

Holliday discusses her tastes, Dolly Parton and Britney Spears while perusing the aisles of the luxury boutique What Goes Around Comes Around in Los Angeles.

“I loved all designer growing up but I’m from a trailer park in Mississippi so none of this felt attainable to me until recently. I loved Chanel because it’s classic,” Holliday says showing off a Chanel lipstick tattoo on her arm.

Her eye quickly moves toward a $2,850 hot pink velvet Gucci Blind For Love Marmont shoulder bag. Holliday remembers the bag because it launched right around the time she could maybe possibly afford one.

“I remember looking at the collection [that] season and thinking: one day,” she recalls.

But it wasn’t long before she nearly screams at the sight of a $35,000 Chanel orange alligator backpack.

“This is one of my favorite colors, probably because of my hair,” Holliday gushes. “I just love to have fun with color and I love rare bags. This baby is both of those things.”

The former makeup artist is also smitten over a Chanel black caviar makeup bag with a $2,750 price tag and an embellished $2,850 Christian Dior denim saddle bag she is certain Dolly Parton would rock. But it’s a $3,725 patchwork denim Louis Vuitton over-the-shoulder bag Holliday feels evokes Britney Spears the most.

“It’s the height of my love for Britney,” Holliday explains. “It’s designer. It’s chic. It’s fun. It’s weird. And I am weird. If I am gonna have this bag and channel my inner Britney, I’m gonna have cut-offs for sure. I’m gonna have a frappuccino in my hand and gonna make sure I have some kind of false lash. I’m just gonna kill it.”

Story continues

At the end of her outing, Holliday’s splurge totals $6,220. She chooses a $3,950 Chanel hot pink lambskin diagonal camera bag and a $1,720 gold Chanel monogram heart necklace.

“I just got sweaty when I saw that,” Holliday says of the bag. “This tassel. I love little details like the quilting on it, it’s crazy.”

Listen to Tess Holliday’s podcast, “Slumber Party,” here!

In The Know is now available on Apple News — follow us here!

If you liked this story, check out other episodes of Bag Secured here.

Chanel Pushes Back Against Suit Over “Copycat” Decor, Seeks Invalidation of Design Studio’s Patents

]

After landing on the receiving end of a patent infringement lawsuit in February for allegedly copying Molo Design’s interior décor creations for its stores after ordering samples of those products from the Vancouver-based design studio, the famed fashion brand is pushing back. In the answer that it filed in a New York federal court this month, Chanel has taken issue with the bulk of the claims set out against it by Molo, denying, among other things, that “it used materials that copied Molo’s softwall + softblock products,” that “it used or authorized infringing copies of Molo’s products,” and ultimately, that it infringed any of the patents that Molo maintains for its accordion-assembled paper creations by way of the similar designs that it used.

The case got its start in February when Molo filed suit, claiming that on the heels of a Chanel executive “order[ing] samples of Molo’s softwall + softblock products” and after two different Chanel-affiliated display companies corresponded with Molo about its products (and received “detailed information regarding its softwall + softblock products,” as well as “technical specification, certifications, and use guides” for the products), it learned that the windows and in-store displays in Chanel stories in various “cities and countries around the world that are using products that copy Molo’s patented softwall + softblock products.” Setting forth claims of patent infringement, Molo alleges that the reproductions that were used by Chanel – including its Upper East Side, Midtown, and Soho, New York outposts – infringe “one or more claims of [its] patents for its softwall + softblock products,” namely four utility patents that cover “flexible furniture systems” complete with “a core formed from a plurality of laminar panels of a flaccid material that are inter-connected to provide an expandable structure upon movement of the panels away from each other.”

“Chanel and [its partners] had knowledge of Molo’s [patents],” the company argues, “and know that their use of reproduction softwalls, which are not authorized by Molo, constituted infringement” of its patents. Alternatively, Molo claims that both Chanel and Substrate “were willfully blind regarding their infringement” of the patents, making their conduct “egregious, willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, and characteristic of a pirate.” All the while, Molo alleges that “Substrate and InLuce were agents for Chanel and acted within the scope of their agency, or otherwise acted at Chanel’s direction and on Chanel’s behalf.”

Despite Molo’s arguments, Chanel asserts in its answer that it has not infringed Molo’s patents, and “denies that any alleged infringement has been willful, deliberate, or in reckless disregard of Molo’s patent rights.” In addition to setting out an array of affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence, limitation on damages, and invalidity, among others, Chanel also sets out a number of counterclaims, in which it asks the court to declare that it has not infringed the four patents that Molo points to in its complaint, namely four utility patents that cover “flexible furniture systems” complete with “a core formed from a plurality of laminar panels of a flaccid material that are inter-connected to provide an expandable structure upon movement of the panels away from each other.”

Chanel argues that it “is entitled to a declaratory judgment … that it has not infringed in any manner any claim of [Molo’s] patent[s],” and states that such a declaration would “resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Molo and to afford relief from the uncertainty and controversy that Molo’s accusations have precipitated.”

Raising the stakes higher, Chanel is also seeking a court order invalidating Molo four patents, arguing that each of the four patents is “invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the statutory requirements that a claimed invention must be “new, useful, and non-obvious” as a condition for patentability. Beyond that, Chanel claims that Molo’s patents fail to meet the specification requirement set out section 112, “and/or the doctrine of non-statutory double patenting,” which refers to a “judicially-created doctrine intended to prevent an improper time-wise extension of a patent right by prohibiting the issuance to a single inventor of claims in a second patent which are not “patentably distinct” from the claims of a first patent.”

Finally, Chanel has requested that the court dismiss Molo’s complaint in its entirety and enter judgment in its favor, while also declaring this “an exceptional case,” and awarding Chanel “its costs (including expert fees), expenses, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.”

The Molo case come amid a recent loss for Chanel when the European Union General Court siding with Chinese tech titan Huawei in a nearly 4-year-old matterover “lookalike” logos. In a decision earlier this month, a panel of judges for EU General Court held that Chanel cannot block Huawei’s quest to register a trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) for use on computer hardware and software programs on the basis that the mark is too similar to its famed double “C” logo, as the respective parties’ marks “must be compared as applied for and registered,” and “without altering their orientation,” the parties’ figurative marks “are not similar.”

While EU trademark experts say that the court’s decision is “in line with case law and the EUIPO Guidelines,” Chanel still has the opportunity to appeal the decision to the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice. Although, it is not yet clear whether the brand will opt to do so.

The case is Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel, Inc., 1:21-cv-01578 (SDNY).

Eurovision Song Contest, stasera la finale ma l’Italia è già regina di Spotify

]

Albania, Azerbaigian, Belgio, Bulgaria, Cipro, Finlandia, Francia, Grecia, Germania, Islanda, Italia, Israele, Lituania, Malta, Moldavia, Norvegia, Paesi Bassi, Portogallo, Regno Unito, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Spagna, Svizzera, Svezia e Ucraina. Sono queste le 26 Nazioni che si contenderanno la vittoria all’Eurovision Song Contest 2021 in onda sabato sera dalle 20.30 su RaiUno.

L’Eurovision Song Contest ci ha da sempre abituati all’effetto sorpresa e pertanto è difficile immaginare quale tra le canzoni favorite dal pubblico possa trionfare. Tuttavia, se volessimo provare a ipotizzare una classifica dalla mera osservazione degli streams di Spotify, vedremmo svettare l’Italia con i nostri Maneskin, seguiti dalla Svezia con “Voices” di Tusse e la Finlandia con “Dark Side” di Blind Chanel. Ad onor del vero bisogna però specificare che gli streams della canzone italiana “Zitti e Buoni” sono avvantaggiati dalla popolarità ottenuta grazie alla loro vittoria a Sanremo.

Spotify global top 10 canzoni Eurovision 2021 più ascoltate:

Italia: “Zitti e buoni” – Måneskin
Svezia: “Voices” – Tusse
Finlandia: “Dark Side” – Blind Channel
Norvegia: “Fallen Angel” – TIX
Francia: “Voilà” – Barbara Pravi
Cipro: “El Diablo” – Elena Tsagrinou
Danimarca: “Øve Os På Hinanden” – Fyr Og Flamme
Svizzera: “Tout l’univers” – Gjon’s Tears
Islanda: “10 Years” – Daði Freyr
Paesi Bassi: “Birth Of A New Age” – Jeangu Macrooy

Da questa playlist potete ascoltare tutte le 39 canzoni in gara all’Eurovision Song Contest 2021 (comprese le escluse)

Appuntamento per l’attesissima finale dunque a sabato 22 maggio su RaiUno in diretta da Rotterdam dalle 20.30 con il commento di Gabriele Corsi e Cristiano Malgioglio.