In recent news, Italian designer Giambattista Valli has repurchased his house and bought back his own name.
In fashion, a name is very important, whether it is an invented label or an actual name, be it Jigsaw or Christian Dior. The name represents a certain approach to clothes and to getting dressed. As the seasons pass, a luxury name can be pinned to other products, or even become overextended in that direction, as happened with Pierre Cardin. The label sewn into the back of a garment often assumes extraordinary importance and, if the label and the founder’s name are the same, it becomes even more significant.
The consumer or client associates the name with the house or brand style, whether functional or glamorous, and a heritage is built over seasons. However, although the name may belong to the owner or founder, it can also be lost, consumed by legalities that no longer allow the designer to use their own name. In a twist of business and fate, Thierry Mugler, Hervé Léger and Olivier Theyskens have all had to shift, lose or renegotiate the use of their own names. Jean-Louis Scherrer watched as other designers, including the wonderful Stéphane Rolland, were engaged to create collections for the very house he founded under his own name, a house he was no longer part of. So, what I am saying is that this is not an odd or unusual occurrence in the fraught and tricky world of fashion.
In brief, back in January, Artémis, the French investment holding company of Kering’s Pinault family, cancelled the Spring 2026 Haute Couture show shortly before the collection was due to be shown. Now, the designer is buying back his namesake brand and regaining control of the house he founded under his own name.
This is not a new development in terms of designers and their names being valuable. The history stretches back to Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel. In 1947, she signed over all legal rights to the name Chanel to the Wertheimer brothers, whose original 70% stake in Chanel perfumes began in 1924. Helmut Lang has not owned his name as a brand since 2006. Jil Sander has had to work for Uniqlo under the J+ label since she no longer owns Jil Sander. In the USA, both Calvin Klein and Halston lost the rights to their fashion names through major growth, until the huge corporate companies supporting them, in truth, “owned” them and then disposed of them.
What happens to a fashion house when the designer loses their place at the helm, or dies, is strangely similar. They are replaced by someone else designing the collections, alongside senior management, often referred to as “the men in suits”, who make decisions and control everything from fabrics to visual merchandising. It is then a toss-up whether the heritage and signatures of the house are respected or corrupted.
Giambattista Valli is following in the footsteps of one especially famous designer in regaining control of his own name.
After launching her eponymous label in 1970, Diane von Furstenberg became one of the most celebrated fashion designers in America, especially after her wrap dress became such a brilliant success with women. In 1983, von Furstenberg sold both her fashion and cosmetics lines to Puritan Fashions Corporation and Beecham Pharmaceuticals, effectively ending her control over the DVF name.
Then, in 1997, von Furstenberg reacquired the licences to the DVF line and reignited interest in her brand by entering into a creative partnership with TV sales channel QVC. It is possible to reclaim one’s name, but it is not the usual pattern, and it is often financially impossible to pluck a fashion name back from its new owners.
There is big money, major investment potential and clear growth seen by businessmen in grabbing control of a successful fashion, beauty or fragrance name. On 31 March 2026, Kering sold its entire beauty division, Kering Beauté, to L’Oréal for roughly €4 billion. The deal was initiated by Kering’s CEO to reduce debt and refocus the luxury group on its core fashion business. So, it is obvious that dealing with a heritage fragrance name such as Creed was part of the attraction for L’Oréal as much as anything else. To put this in context, the House of Creed is reputed, by the company itself, to date back to 1760. In terms of signature, one wonders how the fragrance we purchase now relates to one from more than two hundred years ago.
It has been a busy year in terms of name ownership. In January, Stella McCartney repurchased the 49% stake in her fashion brand from LVMH. This transaction officially ended her five-year corporate partnership with the luxury giant, allowing her label to transition back to full independence under her creative leadership.
Meanwhile, earlier in May, after thirty years with LVMH, 63-year-old Marc Jacobs was bought by WHP Global and G-III in a fifty-fifty deal. Among the names already within these two companies are Karl Lagerfeld, DKNY, Vera Wang, G-Star and Rag & Bone. Marc Jacobs womenswear collections are very expensive, limited edition and available only through severely restricted retail outlets, including one in Japan and perhaps fewer than ten in the USA. Online, the pieces are available on his own site, plus possibly four other sites. The investment, then, must surely be looking at distribution, expansion and price point for any return.
Reviving old and heritage names is a deeply risky business, with both the Worth and Poiret label relaunches failing in recent years. New designers are moved around like chess pieces from house to house to “revive”, refresh or totally restart a name. It can, of course, work. See Zac Posen at Gap on the lower price level. This also points to why a successful fashion brand, even one needing investment and future planning, is often so tempting for takeover, or for new management teams, advisers and consultants to be brought in. However, in the twenty-first century, overexpansion often seems as dangerous as remaining too niche. Many of the smaller and perfectly formed luxury names on the fashion schedule now seem capable of maintaining successful businesses without overextending their profiles.
Giambattista Valli has always had a series of strong romantic signatures. He has shown both on the catwalk, often in intimate salons, and as static exhibitions. His couture credentials, both in his knowledge of the restrictions and themes of the business and in his use of ateliers and workrooms, are superb. It is now going to be fascinating to watch his next steps, and we at House of Solo wish him every success in this new beginning for the house he founded, Giambattista Valli.
