As always, things were weird this week, both in the U.S. and abroad. Here are your weird arrests of the week–consider it a Holiday present, from me to you!

[SlideDeck2 id=30417 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It always amazes me when extreme left-wing, second-wave feminists and extreme right-wing, stuck-in-the-1800s conservatives agree on something. Yet when it comes to tonight’s annual runway party we know and love as the Victoria’s Secret Fashion show, backlash comes from both sides. The left thinks the show objectifies and demoralizes women, whereas the right thinks the show is inappropriate and overly sexual.

Well, I am here to tell you they’re both wrong!

“But Morgan,” you may say. “Aren’t you a feminist? How can you disagree?” Notice that I referenced a very specific kind of feminism. A type that I like to call “faux-feminism” because it failed to move on from the extremist, misandrist views held by those women in the 1970s that people still like to associate with feminism today–incorrectly, of course.

The fashion industry has never been clear cut on the issue of women’s rights. On the one hand, you have a business that thrives on women starving themselves and that perpetuates the idea that only one body type is beautiful. On the other hand, you have models like Cara Delevingne who broadcast their feminism on a daily basis, and more and more fashion advertisements geared toward “normal” body types and positive body image.

Victoria’s Secret, as we all know, is an underwear company. Women around the globe, myself included, love to buy their five  for $25 panty specials and comfy campus sweatpants. They sell the idea that women–regardless of size–are the definition of sexy. Aside from some beauty products and an ever-shrinking clothing line, they make their money off of lingerie. It follows that their fashion show would feature just that. What’s more, instead of acknowledging the long-held stereotype of underwear models as “sluts” they make their models “angels.”

But not the cliché of pure, virtuous angels. Victoria’s Secret instead chooses to laugh in the face of the dichotomy of women being either angel or devil: their models are both. They walk the runway in what conservative society deems inappropriate or risqué, and they smile, laugh, and blow kisses at the audience while they’re at it. It’s thanks to feminism that they have the right to walk the runway in their corsets and bikini-cut panties. It’s thanks to feminism that they can enjoy it without judgement.

Oh but wait, we don’t live in a perfect society! These models, who walk the runway and model this lingerie willingly, are still judged for their choice to do so. I hate to repeat myself, but as I have said in several previous posts, feminism allows women to do and wear and be whatever they want. These women choose to be underwear models.

And they are damn good at it. Do I think the fashion show objectifies women? You could make the argument that it does. But from years of tuning into the fashion show, most of the time I just see a fun celebration for the models. Besides, recognized feminists like Rihanna, Taylor Swift, and even the models themselves, perform on that runway. Obviously they don’t take offense to the outfits. Do I think some of Victoria’s Secret’s advertisements objectify women and are geared toward men? Sometimes, but that is a topic for another post.

My point this time around is, if a woman wants to model underwear for Victoria’s Secret, more power to her. Who are we to judge?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Victoria’s Secret Angels Model Lingerie and Feminism appeared first on Law Street.

Victoria’s Secret — can I call you Victoria? — has been a naughty, naughty girl.  As a dedicated brand minion for Victoria, I felt like a bit of a sleazeball when I decided to spill the specifics on her latest antics.  I really hate to break it to all my lovers out there, but the largest American retailer of lingerie has been accused of — wait for it — infringement.  Mmmmhmm.  And this isn’t the first time.

Unfortunately, I have to stand my ground on the opposite bedpost here, Victoria.  Hanky Panky Ltd., a Manhattan-based lingerie company, is suing Victoria’s Secret for trademark infringement of its registered marks “Indulge Your Inner Flirt” and “After Midnight.” First off, can anyone tell me why we’re automatically in the red zone?  “The Dupont Factors!,” shouted James Franco (cited merely because he’s an all-time overachiever and not because of the subject matter). Why yes, we have two lingerie companies. This means we’re already dealing with similar products that should be tossed in the indicative-of-infringement basket. Not that this should have been glaringly evident to Limited Brands, the parent company of Victoria’s Secret. No no no. Let’s dig deeper.

The “After Midnight” Infringement Claim

Hanky Panky registered the “After Midnight” mark to cover its 2010 collection of *ehem* “crotchless panties, sensual peek-a-boo bralettes, daring teddies and babydolls.” The complaint claims that this raunchy collection also features “sexual accessories such as lubricants and candles.”  Sounds good to me.  Problem is, it sounded pretty good to Victoria’s Secret, too. So good that they decided to slap the name on their own “aphrodisiac mood candle.”  Well, why stop there? Let’s also put the stolen mark on a few products in literally the same category, erotic unmentionables, that the mark represents for another company.

I don’t understand. Did Victoria’s Secret just think Hanky Panky was going to look the other way as they deliberately trampled on and sucked all of the commercial juice out of the mark?  Hanky Panky has a valid trademark. Sure the mark is suggestive, but it’s valid nonetheless. Victoria’s Secret took the exact mark of a competitor, with the knowledge that consumers would be confused, and placed it on extremely similar goods. It comes as no surprise that Hanky Panky is also asking for punitive damages under state law.  I see some much-needed discipline in your future, Victoria.

The “Indulge Your Inner Flirt” Infringement Claim

Hanky Panky trademarked the catchphrase, “Indulge your inner flirt,” in 2007, and has been using the slogan in its ads ever since. Yet Victoria’s Secret still thought they were entitled to thrust a strong middle finger to trademark law and appropriate the phrase in the ads for its own sexy PJs. This can’t be real life. Why should companies even utilize our trademark laws if they have no tenacity?

Soo…are you just running low in your fresh ideas bucket, Victoria? You knew better and chose not to do better. Sigh.

Still looking forward to the next semi-annual sale, though.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [thinkretail via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Midnight: Victoria’s Secret Indecent Behavior appeared first on Law Street.