• Due to the angry mob of pitchfork-weilding black people, Adidas has canceled the controversial Jeremy Scott-designed shackle sneakers. Adidas says the design has “nothing to do with slavery,” and “Since the shoe debuted on our Facebook page ahead of its market release in August, Adidas has received both favorable and critical feedback. We apologize if people are offended by the design and we are withdrawing our plans to make them available in the marketplace.” Scott says the shoe was inspired by the “My Pet Monster” children’s toy. (HuffPost)
• Jennifer Hudson is the latest star to contribute to the already over saturated celebrity “designer” market. The Dreamgirls actress will debut a 14-piece range with QVC this September. The collection is supposed to appeal to a wide spectrum of sizes. Says Hudson, “I feel like I represent every woman. I’ve been on both sides of the fence. I’ve been a big girl and now whatever this is, the average size, whatever you want to call it. But I wanted the clothes to be where any girl could wear it — no matter what size you are — and you could feel comfortable in it.” Prices are affordable, starting at $50 for leggings to $170 for a coat. Think you’ll check it out? (Glamour)
• With the sudden return to her eponymous label, Jil Sander is taking her brand back to its roots. The designer tells Suzy Menkes to expect some serious minimalism for her Spring 2013 collection, which she says is mostly done: “I’m working less on decoration, more on form – pattern-making and materials, with a lot of dresses in the collection – in a good modern way.” (Grazia)
• Louis Vuitton lost their trademark infringement suit against Warner Bros. The French luxury brand took the production company to court over an airport scene in The Hangover 2 where Zach Galifinakis‘s character says, “Careful, that is Lewis Vuitton.” LV cried trademark infringement, saying consumers would be confused by this line, thus diluting their brand. Vuitton was basically laughed out of court. Says The Fashion Law; The Court’s opinion, dated June 15, 2012, states that Louis Vuitton’s allegations of confusion are ‘not plausible, let alone particularly compelling.’ Judge Carter noted that it is highly unlikely that an ‘appreciable number of people watching the Film would notice that the bag is a knock-off,’” What do you think? Did the court make the right ruling? (The Fashion Law)
• Paper magazine created 6 gifs from Azealia Banks‘s latest feature in their magazine. They are predictably awesome. (PAPER)
~Jihan
June 19, 2012 11:41 am
No thank you Ms. Hudson, concentrate on a decent CD please.
Those JS sneaks are attrocious, as are most of his other ones. I can see how slavery might be conjured, but it’s not that deep-don’t purchase them.
June 19, 2012 11:45 am
Those sneakers really had nothing to do with slavery though…people are always finding something to be offended about. Obviously Adidas being the huge sport apparel company with lots of money wouldn’t try to make “slave shoes” to offend anyone! Why would they? Missy Elliot, B.O.B and many others are the spokespeople of this brand. People misinterpreted J.Scott’s creativity..
p.s please don’t jump down my throat about MY opinion and try to give me some history lesson…I know my roots. I just think people took this way too far, these had nothing to do with King Kong or slavery..
June 19, 2012 11:49 am
Azealia’s shoes are everything!
June 19, 2012 12:06 pm
Jennifer Hudson, girl bye!
June 19, 2012 12:11 pm
J-Hud and a clothing line? What gives? LOL @ Louis Vuitton taking Warner Brothers to court and losing. I guess the law isn’t on the designers sides these days.
June 19, 2012 12:19 pm
again with the shoes..blk ppl know they dont know how to let stuff go!
June 19, 2012 12:25 pm
Black ppl were not the only slaves in the world, and whatever they were shackled with has nothing to do with these ugly shoes…there are way more important issues nowadays, such as sex slaves and hunger in 3rd word countries…ppl need to get over themselves and move forward!
June 19, 2012 12:38 pm
the adidas sneakers were offensive and insensitive. what was the point of them? who was the target market? why would anyone buy them?
June 19, 2012 12:45 pm
I agree that black people get offended way too easily. Blacks were not the only slaves and slaves are not the only people shackled. I swear we hop on the easy bandwagons and never adress the important bigger issues that are hurting us way more than some sneakers.
June 19, 2012 1:12 pm
The Adidas sneakers has absolutely nothing to do with slavery. @Mak; how is this offensive or insensitive? I am a black woman and I live in London, and my first thought was “these are ugly shoes”. I definitely did not think
slavery. Adidas should not have chickened out over this tomfoolery.
June 19, 2012 1:14 pm
no to jhud’s line….it looks boring.
June 19, 2012 1:54 pm
I just think if we as a people are to “get over” slavery (as if one can get over one of the biggest crimes against humainty) we need not to be reminded of it in a market where we are the biggest consumers. I’m sorry but telling me (a black woman) to get over slavery is offensive in itself. Seeing as how whenever I look in the mirror I can see the enslavement and rape of my ancestors on my face.. on a lighter note
@KBS LMAO not concentrate on a decent CD first….too much! She sure does put out non-satisfactory music.
June 19, 2012 2:02 pm
There is nothing unique about Jennifer’s clothing line and I like her, but honey nothing ground breaking here.
June 19, 2012 2:10 pm
-I need J-Hud to make music… it’s usually pretty impossible to create ” a clothing line for every woman” since what’s usually wrong with clothes is the way they are sized, not the wearer.
-As far as the shoes go, I can see how the shoe was related to the toy now, but I was born in ’87.. it isn’t a relatable reference to anyone under the age of 25 ( even though we buy most of the kicks that are produced and spend the most time camped out for a pair of Yeezy’s or J’s). Try again, my beloved three stripes :)
-Louis Vuitton mad at “Lewis Vuitton”? Please! Only the best of the best can spot on a giant screen that those were knockoffs. If you think I’m wrong, watch VH1′s House of Consignment and how hard it was for their future interns to spot knockoffs.
-Yay Jil Sander!!
June 19, 2012 2:30 pm
LOL@LEWIS VUITTON…but really tho..i swore lv had better legal team..seriously the lawsuit made me roll on my carpet laffing.
June 19, 2012 2:38 pm
A clothing line… Jennifer Hudson is the tackiest thing on two feet… NEXT>>
June 19, 2012 2:49 pm
hmm…jennifer hudson…clothing line. No, sorry, can’t see it. As far as the shoes are concerned #imdone. I’m saddened that some African Amercians don’t get it. Some of us need a history lesson. I’ll keep you in my prayers. I pray one day you minds be opened so you can understand why you should care. Have a good one.
June 19, 2012 2:52 pm
I wouldn’t necessarily associate the sneakers to mocking slavery. They’re just UGLY and tacky.
June 19, 2012 3:10 pm
Them shoes is turrable; and I concur that J Hud is the tackiest thing on two feet. The latter was hella funny, right? LOL @ Indigo!
June 19, 2012 3:34 pm
lol so he created the shoe based on my pet monster,i never would have guess that.
June 19, 2012 4:17 pm
J Hud can’t even dress herself -____-
June 20, 2012 5:53 am
Can I ask, why is it that “black people” are always told to let things go? No one would ever think of saying that to the Jewish community. It seems we can never air our grievance (of which there are many) without us being told, where not allowed to. When are we allowed too air what we find offensive? Who determines what we should find offensive? Should it be us, or people from outside our community.
June 20, 2012 7:14 am
@misslalal because we are often the ones to take it way too far esp w/ these shoes. slavery will always be apart of our roots, we often use it as an excuse…
June 20, 2012 9:46 am
Why are they making such a big fuss over minute things? hello there are plenty of big issues around the world which is more important than your issues..
Great bod Jeniffer!
June 21, 2012 11:35 am
@luvwhiteboys who is it that decides what’s too far. Some people have decided that the Trayvon Martin case is too far, who makes that call?