05-24-2011 05:59 PM
05-24-2011 07:38 PM
05-25-2011 07:22 AM
05-25-2011 11:28 AM
01-15-2013 03:42 AM
To properly answer the OP and dispel any misapprehension caused by the misleading replies from "no longer registered" vagabondsoulvintage:
Yes, they are fake!
I really can't see what part of CHANEL's published declaration that they "NEVER MANUFACTURED" any such "perfumed pens" is not clear — or if it's that the meaning and legal protection of a federally registered trademark is not understood. But whatever the misunderstanding is, I would recommend reading the full FAQ section on the CHANEL VeRO member's AboutMe page here: http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserP
Regardless of what one may wish or "believe", the fact remains that these pens are notorious counterfeits and variants turn up regularly on vintage and auction sites like a bad penny.
As there is never any mention of Lanvin or France on any of them that should be clear enough proof alone, plus the fact that competitive designer/perfume companies would never collaborate on such a thing to begin with; CHANEL never printed No. 5 as "# 5" nor did Lanvin misspell Arpège as "Arpége"[sic]! See more examples: http://s302.beta.photobucket.com/user/gempix/libra
Obviously, since CHANEL did not make them, it automatically follows that neither did Lanvin — just think, if either design house ever used a competitor's trademark on any of their products they would be publicly and royally SUED!
So, the only question remaining is, who made them?
A: Cunning counterfeiters (in the 70s), with made up company & "designed by" names (e.g. W-Pen Co; Barbara Reed; dElya inc.), phoney "Warrantee" inserts with no phone numbers, and a changing variety of bogus P. O. Box addresses at NY train stations! Ergo, untraceable and uncontactable. Does that sound like a legitimate business to anyone?
An example of one of the most blatantly phoney addresses used on some of these fake perfumed pens' "Guarantee" cards is this:
509 Fifth Ave
New York, NY, 10017 "
FYI: 509 Fifth Ave is a 12 story building built in 1916 with 4,800 square feet of rentable office space! So, no company name, no floor & no office suite numbers?
They are not solid "14kt Gold" as misleadingly implied on the cases & pens either (also a FTC violation); only the filigree has any gold content in a thin paint/foil and rubs off.
However, if CHANEL's own statements about what they never made aren't enough to convince someone that those branded "perfumed pens" are all illegal counterfeits, then no other proof would either.
Although denial is a common phenomenon with people who can't accept that they've been fooled, it is no excuse for perpetuating a fraud by knowingly trying to sell illegal merchandise to others. It also shows contempt by implication for all designers' and artists' Intellectual Property rights.
FACT: Counterfeit and trademark infringing goods are still illegal regardless of their "vintage".
To better understand what federally registered Trademarks mean, this may help:
"A trademark is any word, name, symbol, device, or combination thereof that is used by a merchant used to identify their goods and distinguish them from those
manufactured and sold by other merchants. For example, Louis Vuitton's "LV" logo or Chanel's "Double C" logo are trademarks. Trademark protection in the United
States is very strong and potentially infinite in length, as long as the mark is being used in commerce to designate the source of the goods.
"The key to determining if another designer is infringing on a trademark is the likelihood that ordinary consumers in the marketplace would confuse the original
trademark and the allegedly infringing trademark. For example, Adidas won a $305 million judgment against Payless Shoes in 2008 for selling two and four stripe
shoes that looked very similar to Adidas's three stripe shoes." Source: http://jinlex.com/articles-alerts/fashion-and-garm
CHANEL, INC. owns the "federally registered trademarks CHANEL, CC MONOGRAM, and CC SQUARE (collectively the "Chanel Marks")."
ARPÈGE, originally trademarked & owned by Jeanne Lanvin & Lanvin Parfum's Inc.: http://trademarks.justia.com/713/08/arpege-7130844
Currently active & owned by: http://trademarks.justia.com/owners/inter-parfums-
MY SIN trademark, owned by Lanvin Parfums, Inc., only expired in 1995:
07-31-2013 07:29 AM
No, that is not why, i too just had same item removed from ebay, i called them immed. to hear them say the same thing, Chanel No. 5 is a prefume and pen sets were never made by chanle No. 5. I am sworn to prove them wrong. Lets google and bink this **bleep** and find a direct number to chanel and ask for ourselfs.
09-23-2013 12:10 PM
10-20-2013 01:07 AM
Oh brother why is eveyone acting like this is a federal offence! I have a set of these pens. The nick of the case says made in Canada no28. The person I bought them from worked in a cosmetic dept. I worked in a cosmetic dept and my guess is that these were a gift with purchase or a purchase with purchase. These type of things were often pulled for looking to much like a trademark
Because trademark infringement is a federal offense! You might want to actually read what I explained in my previous post. (And view this gallery of all the fake "Arpege/Chanel No. 5" variations produced).
I realize the misinformation and myths circulated on the net die hard, like that nonsense about those fake pens supposedly being "sold/given out at Macy's" and as a "gift with purchase", but can anyone imagine Macy's ever risking a multi-million dollar lawsuit from both CHANEL and Lanvin Parfums for trademark infringement and fraud, seriously?
So it makes no difference what you might believe or "guess", the fact remains that those trashy "perfumed pens" were never made or authorized by CHANEL or Lanvin; and neither company ever produced "perfumed pens" of any kind. Period. Ref FAQ on the Chanel VeRO chanelusa
Some of the pen cases being Made in Canada is only another obvious clue that they were not authentic, just as having no mention of the trademark owners' company names, French origin or address (as real Chanel and Lanvin products always have).
Anyway, the original fraudsters certainly learned it was a federal offense when they were successfully sued by A. T. Cross Company for infringing their Cross trademark and cited for the "Arpege/Chanel No. 5" fakes in the federal court records of those hearings as well:
A. T. CROSS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN BRADLEY PENS, Inc., et al, Defendants.
Civ. No. 72 4266.
United States District Court, S. D. New York.
October 25, 1972.
"It was also brought out at the hearing that defendants distribute and sell pens with 'Chanel #5' and 'Arpege' printed on them, that they have not secured permission from the owners to use these marks, and have not advised the owners of defendants' use."
& Para 15:
"The evidence thus far adduced makes clear that defendants' use of 'La Crosse' as a mark is a deliberate attempt to promote sales of its product by capitalizing on the plaintiff's reputation. As indicated, defendants make unauthorized use of the mark 'Chanel #5' and 'Arpege' as well."
Can it get any clearer than that?
11-21-2013 01:54 PM
I just wanted to thank you for letting me know about these. I took my auction down as soon as you did and then, of course, got a notice from eBay telling me I had been turned in. I was happy to remove them, since they didn't cost much and all I do is a few yard sale and estate finds. I'm not really sure why you are so angry about these, but a little friendliness goes a long way.
12-12-2013 09:47 AM
Lol! One has to like anyone who can coin the word, "fraudster!"
I read the whole thing with interest, and while I can certainly see why Chanel and Lanvin wish to distance themselves from such mediocre items, I have a thought or two to add to the mix.
BOTH those perfumes are readily identified, even now when they are somewhat out of fashion. And they do have a very pleasant scent. In fact, they smell rather expensive. (Always a good thing.)
Now, if I were the OP, I would seek out frequent flyer ladies. We are all constrained by the present rules about liquids en plane -- why not circumvent the problem?
Do a little advertising for the real thing on the way to Paris.
12-13-2013 09:46 AM
Lol! One has to like anyone who can coin the word, "fraudster!"
You haven't heard the word "fraudster" before? it's been in common use since the early '60s actually: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraudste
Anyway, as a buyer & connoisseur of pre-'90s vintage Arpège de Lanvin perfume for many years, (it's my signature scent), I kept running into those tacky pens so often in my searches that I thought a little education would be more constructive than just hitting the report button.
Regarding the original perfumes themselves, Lanvin's post-1993 reformulations of Arpège are nothing like the original at all, unfortunately; and I understand from Chanel aficianados that N°5 has suffered from similar "reorchestrations" — thanks to the laws, restrictions &/or unavailability of various natural ingredients used in the original perfumes that had to be replaced with synthetics. That's why most modern perfumes do literally "stink" & I can't wear any of them.
As for counterfeits, Chanel perfumes have in fact been faked since the 1920s & I've seen quite a few counterfeit Arpège bottles turn up as well. But nothing compares to all the latest fake designer perfumes flooding eBay from China now.
12-18-2013 11:51 AM