DXG's latest camcorders sport the Burberry and Chanel look, KIRF-style

Unimpressed by DXG's lineup of value-priced but generally underwhelming video recording options? Maybe a few trendy pattern appliques will change your mind. The company's apparently gone down to Canal Street, grabbed a few "discount" handbags, and turned them into gaudy camcorders that promise 720p capture at 30fps. They're set to retail for a mere $129, and while the company's pledging they'll be available at stores like Radio Shack and Walmart later this summer, we're thinking there are probably a few trademark attorneys out there with a thing or two to say about that.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 9:29PM]

first

[naz Posted Apr 10th 2009 9:46AM]

At least it includes matching luxury case

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 9:48AM]

The most ridiculous thing I've seen this week on CrapGadget.

Next to all those LG made - iPhone wannabe's.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 10:52AM]

Yes they are horrible but at least they don't pretend to be original designs, like Apple did when it copyied the LG prada phone called iPhone and then pretended to have invented sliced bread.
A surprisingly big number of morons who just ate up all the hype blwing from Cupertino still now refuse to see reality.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 11:15AM]

Ridiculous for you, I and everybody with taste perhaps. I'm sure they'll sell well.

Chavs rejoice!

[UnixSystemsEngineer Posted Apr 10th 2009 11:52AM]

They'll sell well in countries that value image over all else (cough, china)

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 9:54AM]

Hahahaha Luxe Collection! This is fabulous.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 10:01AM]

This is bound to be a recession antidote.

[darkmax Posted Apr 10th 2009 10:10AM]

Are those authorized by the designer houses? Or are we looking at a potential international lawsuit there?

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 10:52AM]

Not if they're selling for $129.

[cowtown Posted Apr 10th 2009 11:08AM]

"fabric" patterns like that are not subject to trademark protection (old set of court cases about knock off designers). This is a big reason why Louis Vuitton is so obsessed with it's brown and tan pattern: it actually has the protectable LV monogram integrated into it, so they can sue to their heart's content. No matter how iconic, beige plaid and padded diamond-stitching are not sufficient to invoke trademark protection.

[Freak mojo Posted Apr 10th 2009 10:20AM]

I'd rather stick with the plain-Jane versions that Wally World has on clearance for about $70 now.... who needs faux fashion? I want faux function!

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 10:59AM]

Are you sure?
Faux means false, fake.
Do you really want fake functions? Like something that looks like a function but in reality does'nt work?
I definitely don't.
I don't like anything that is fake or false , but specially not fake functionality (and fake people)

[Freak mojo Posted Apr 10th 2009 2:04PM]

@KilgoreTrout

Yes. I know what "faux" means.. .and it was a total dig at the quality of the hardware.

[(Unverified) Posted Apr 10th 2009 11:26AM]

sneak one of these into the girls locker room

BOING! oh yeah!

[LloydChiro Posted Apr 10th 2009 12:17PM]

Zing! Pow!

Onomatopoeia!