Talk:Miche (bag)

Popularity section POV and not factual.

The popularity section is classic POV, and needs to be changed! Everything stated in that section needs to have a citation, otherwise vague weasel words like "many" and the sentence about being a fashion statement [according to whom???] needs to be removed. Until this is corrected, the weasel word notation stays.

Further, the "one of a kind" statement is now completely NON factual, as there is a SHELLY bag out there that does the same thing this bag does. It should also be noted that this is the case, and in fact Miche Bag, LLC. filed suit against this new bag company for trademark infringement. However, in the interim of a court decision, as you can see, Miche is not unique anymore. It might be noted that Miche invented the notion, as long as a citation to the patent is located and referenced. I personally haven't looked for it. --Chÿna ChÿnaDragön (talk • contribs) 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the trademark infringement case was found in favour of Miche Bag LLC. It would maybe help the article to read less like an advertisment if the references to where it can be purchased were removed. There is also quite a following on a Facebook group, but as yet I don't know how to add links or references so wouldn't attempt to add a link to it. AFL222 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.michebag.ca/about-miche. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)