THE Gucci whose name is all over your purse (or in my case, all over my much richer friends’ purses) is dead, but a kid several generations down the line has just learned she can’t use his name anymore.
The former wife of Guccio Gucci’s grandson Paolo (she filed for divorce in the nineties) went into business with daughter Gemma Gucci, using their last name. But according to the Wall Street Journal, the House of Gucci said no dice, taking them to court and winning on the basis that the last name has been trademarked – and anyone marketing products under the name would be confusing customers.
Apparently, they didn’t want us buying coffee, bedding, housewares, cosmetics, hosiery, handbags, wine and gelato thinking we were buying real Gucci goodies (no word on whether they thought this was better or worse than the folks currently buying Cucci bags from the street vendor and adding the extra line with magic marker . . . you know who you are).
Paolo’s dead, and he had a falling out with the family BEFORE then. But Gemma’s his kid, and she came about the last name through no fault of her own.
There’s obviously super huge bucks at stake here (no one is going to come calling for the name “Sager” any time soon, sadly), and there’s no doubt this kid was cashing in on the family name to make a buck. But isn’t that sort of earned?
It seems strange to consider passing a name down to your child, then yanking back the rights to use that name . Isn’t that part of what we give our kids? Our last name to bring it forth into the future, to continue the line.