RIDICULE AROUND RITA

Some time ago there were headlines over here, and smaller notices elsewhere, about Ivana Trump suing the Finnish fashion company IVANAhelsinki claiming the later was taking advantage of her name. This was when the IVANAhelsinki collection was presented at the New York fashion week. While many considered it a PR trick from Trump's side, it was considered plain idiocity over here : IVANAhelsinki was founded in the late nineties by Paola Ivana (yes, that's her name too) while Trump registered her name as a trade mark as late as 2002... And back then few even knew about any of the Trumps over here - and even fewer cared. I noticed that some of the non Finnish articles mentioning the case, while over all neutral, were wondering why someone would want to use the Ivana name anyhow as the thing is a bit "old and used already". (To be pointed out is that there seems to be several Ivana-named brands in NY already, like an Ivana Vodka for example). Which shows of bad research of those authors - apart from the facts already mentioned the thing with IVANA helsinki is that the brand of course has nothing to do with any other Ivana than the one designing the clothes, and does not really have any need nor desire to be associated with anything else than itself.

Well, I don't know how the case has continued as the news front has been silent so far. But yesterday a new case made the headlines (something I noticed already has been appearing in posts by many fellow Finnish blogs during the past day too); Adidas has demanded Minna Parikka to withdraw her Rita shoe from the market, claiming the three stripes are copied from the classic Adidas sneaker.

Minna has explained that the three stripes are the ribbons of the bows in front of the shoe, but she still chose to withdraw the boot as "a small entrepreneur stands little chance against a huge corporation". It seems her matching Mistress gloves are also no longer available.

Of course companies and trade marks should watch out for themselves and their copyrighted products and look (for example the Marimekko vs. D&G case was rather obvious), but not by being obsessive - or cocky. I think comparing a high heeled boot from a chick designer to a classic leisure sneaker is, well, ridiculous.

For me those striped boots resembles a covered version of some of her pumps with three or more straps. But never in a lifetime would I have thought of Adidas! What do you think?

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, OR TO HASBEENS?

First I'm going to tell you something and then I'm going to ask you something.

The telling: I'm completely fucked in the head.

To start with I blame the internet, my paypal account and then a bunch of other facts, phenomenons and whatever. The thing is, I just can't stop wanting stuff, not only believing but knowing I need it/that/those/whatever, trying to make my wardrobe complete; perfect for any occasion. You know, one part of life such as it is seen upon nowadays is a constant search for the perfect something - the perfect job, the perfect home, the perfect partner, the perfect hand bag, perfect black skirt, foundation, mascara, every day shoes, life you name it... The longing for all things perfect and then even a little more prefect is something of a challenge we create upon ourselves but also something being fed to us all the time in magazines and commercials.

Well, enough about blaming society for my materialistic cravings as the thing here was about me and my f:d up head, plus, for the moment I actually have the perfect home-in-the-making and a pretty perfect partner (plus perfect lashes done so skip the mascara and I've given up on the black skirt). But, as it seems, not the perfect easy going shoes for summer. As that is clearly something everyone needs. And one fine day when I should have been out in the park enjoying the sunshine but instead sat down by the wonderful never-ending world of the internet I found the perfect ones:

Swedish Hasbeens candy coloured sky high sandals. That at least in my book look comfy enough for the so called every day wear.

But but but. I have a whole box of -yet-to -unpack-and-nowhere-to-put-after-that-shoes (not sandals though! Very few such!) at home. (Not to mention clothes, still a couple of suitcases in waiting. And strangely though, I think I have less and less to wear day by day. How can it be?)

Well anyway, I may be fucked in the head but the sandals are still pretty sweet aren't they? And one pair more wouldn't hurt. Plus my comfy everyday summer shoes so far have been a pair of red H&M peeptoes, well serving their 19 euros since 2006, now falling apart. I mean, these even come in mint green! (Even though I do think one pair of mint green shoes are enough, believe it or not. Might go for pink or natural-shaded ones instead).


Hmmm.

So, now over to the questions: since the apparently much hyped Swedish Hasbeens still are a little bit on the more expensive side I'd really like to know if they are comfortable. That would pretty much be the whoel point of purchasing. I sort of think that if you pay more than 150 euros for a pair of shoes comfot better come with the price - that works for Minna Parikka shoes at least, but you can never be sure.(And no, lower heels are out of the question. I don't think the sky high ones look that high anyway.)
So any experiences on the sky high ones?
Or hasbeens in general?

And does anybody know about the sizing? I read they are rather small but their size chart seems to be pretty regular, almost bit on the bigger side. I've been measuring my feet over and over here at work, even standing on a ruler and the result indicates I should go for a 36 but that would be one size smaller than my normal one and I can't really trust that.

Well over and out, let's see if I end up with a pair or if I find something else more necessary and interesting before I click Buy.