Carte Blanche: Pierre Cardin - Champion Of Licensing

Pascal Le Segretain

On December 29th at the age of 98, world-renowned fashion designer Pierre Cardin died in an American hospital right outside of Paris. Cardin is well known among the fashion elite for his innate ability to challenge convention and pioneer the future. Others adored him for his keen eye for opportunity and fierce entrepreneurship that eventually set his net worth around $800 million. 

In his early twenties, Cardin worked under Dior and was thought to potentially one day become his successor (Yves Saint Laurent took that place instead). Although he did not claim Dior’s throne, he paved his own path - like the true entrepreneur he was. 

Cardin became established in the design world through his work in haute couture, or custom made clothing by designers who meet the strict criteria of the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture in Paris. Criteria includes using made-to-order designs and possessing a Paris located workshop. 

But Cardin found real success when he broke free of the extremely restrictive rules of the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture with the intention of tapping into the market of the masses. He transferred his designs to ready-to-wear department store attire, but where Cardin made his real money was through brand licensing. He quite literally made a name for himself among the fashion elite and in turn sold that name to the rest of the world. 

Libertarians are divided about Cardin. This is because there are two strains of thought on intellectual property within the Libertarian Party. One side views intellectual property law as a very legitimate function of government. After all, most libertarians believe that the government should stick to the one function - protecting property. Thus the government is well within their channel to protect one’s ownership of an idea, design, or in Cardin’s case - name. 

The idea behind intellectual property law is that it will incentivize private individuals and industries to innovate through the allure of potentially high earnings. Would a graphic designer really spend countless hours perfecting the perfect design if there were no guarantee that another designer with a larger platform couldn’t just copy the design and sell it themselves?

Would Cardin have ever built an entire empire - one so highly regarded - if he could not eventually profit highly from the name he created for himself? As Cardin himself said “I was born an artiste, but I am a businessman.” Cardin has described himself as the child of “poor people,” and is unashamedly capitalist and quick to boast about his self made success as he profited off his name being added to a variety of commodities - from scarves to keychains, even kitchen appliances. He even admitted to a desire to license his name on toilet paper if the opportunity came up. “My goal for success has always been Capitalism,” he once boasted. 

Cardin was not the only one to benefit from granting the government the ability to protect his name. So too did the budget-stricken consumers of fashion worldwide. The promise of profit convinced Cardin to break French high fashion tradition. This resulted in the democratization of elitist haute couture inspired design and satisfied consumers around the world. 

But some libertarians would argue that Cardin perfectly epitomizes the problem with licensing agreements of intellectual property. These government regulations, they argue, simply monopolize streams of revenue and instead stifle innovation. Acquiring rights to intellectual property involves recognition of the state and costs money. Therefore intellectual property law is simply a crony protectionist policy designed to keep the rich, rich and the powerful, powerful.

This point, however, misses the nuance of licensing agreements. If a company sold a brown silk scarf they could maybe profit $25 - but when they add someone else’s name (a name and reputation created through years of labor) to that scarf and now profit $40 - they have successfully profited $15 off someone else’s property and labor and thus infringed upon it. IP law could change that scenario to the company that sells the scarf with the name on it receiving an additional $10 profit after paying out $5 to the owner of the name, by terms of contract. Therefore, Licensing allows a consensual agreement to take place where the owner agrees to sell some of his property in exchange for profit.  Further, it prevents others from profiting off someone else's work without at least compensating them as well. That’s libertarian enough for me.