A new global luxury brands survey conducted by The Nielsen Company reveals the world’s most coveted luxury brands and finds that Gucci, the flagship brand of French luxury group PPR, is number one. One in five global consumers said they would choose to buy Gucci (over any other luxury brand) if money was no option, making the Italian fashion brand that was revived by Tom Ford in the 1990s the most coveted and aspirational luxury brand in the world today.

Chanel and Calvin Klein tied for second place in Nielsen’s 48-country online survey that was conducted in November 2007. In fourth place came Louis Vuitton, followed by Giorgio Armani, Christian Dior and Versace. Two years ago in the same survey, Gucci shared top honours in the survey with Giorgio Armani, which has since slipped to fourth place in current global rankings.

“It’s an incredible achievement for Gucci to remain at the top of the most coveted league table for luxury brands,” said Patrick Dodd, president Europe, The Nielsen Company. “In the past two years, Gucci has managed to maintain and even increase its brand equity in a very competitive and fickle industry. They have achieved this by consistently embedding their core brand values in all their branded products, which range from perfume and sunglasses to accessories, jewellery, handbags and ready-to-wear fashion,” noted Dodd.

While on a global ranking Gucci dominated overall, regional luxury brand preferences prevailed, reflecting fashion and lifestyle differences across the globe. Among the world’s most aspirational brands – if money was no object – two in five Chinese consumers would choose Chanel and 38 % of Russians would choose Christian Dior. One in three Russian consumers also said they would spend their money at Versace and Prada. Two in five Hong Kongers and Filipinos would choose Louis Vuitton while Giorgio Armani, Calvin Klein and Yves St Laurent are top picks for Latam consumers. 25% of Japanese consumers would buy Hermes if money was no object.

As a global region North America was the least interested in luxury brands, with 35% of consumers saying that they would “not buy any” luxury brands even if money was no object. Dutch consumers (43%) and Norwegians (37%) topped global rankings for not buying any luxury brands if money was no object. According to the Nielsen report, one in four global consumers said they currently buy designer brands. Currently, 31% of consumers in UAE and Hong Kong say they buy Gucci-branded products. The small nations of UAE and Hong Kong are the two most famous shopping meccas on earth and it’s no surprise that their shopaholic, image-conscious citizens are among the biggest fans of luxury goods today. Their geographical location also means they benefit directly from “shopping tourism” – Dubai attracts the wealthy shopping elite from neighboring Saudi Arabia and Hong Kong attracts the new wealth from China.

“Shopping is a way of life in these countries and luxury brands are an essential part of the population’s wardrobe, even if it comes in the form of a key chain,” said Dodd.

Consumers in Hong Kong are currently the most likely to buy Gucci, Burberry and Louis Vuitton more than any other country. UAE consumers topped global rankings for currently buying Christian Dior, Versace, YSL, Givenchy and Calvin Klein.

“The appeal of the luxury designer brand continues to grow – a luxury brand is simply something that consumers, especially those in emerging markets, are willing to pay a significant premium for”, said Dodd.

According to the Nielsen survey, 25 % of global consumers said designer brands are of significantly higher quality than standard products and 60 % said that people wear designer brands to project social status. While quality is certainly a key factor for buying luxury brands – it’s not enough. A luxury brand needs to sell its core brand values within its image; the “image” that is reflected in this design and lifestyle is what consumers are prepared to pay a premium to buy into. Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and Diesel top rankings for designer brands currently bought by global consumers. These brands are the most accessible and affordable to first-time luxury brand consumers. From perfume to underwear and a basic t-shirt, these brands offer a “designer” cache at a fraction of the price.

These brands also understand “it’s important to embed the brand values in smaller items to initially attract the consumer,” said Dodd, “because when the consumer has more disposable income, they will upgrade within the same brand to more expensive items.”

Interestingly, 23% of global consumers said they would shun international luxury brands in favour of buying a “local designer” from their country. The survey also indicated strong support for luxury brand names from local consumers. Italians topped global rankings for buying their own brands such as Prada and Max Mara. According to the Nielsen survey, 35% of global consumers said they would buy a mobile phone if it was co-branded with a luxury brand – a sector that fashion giants such as Prada and Armani have already taken advantage of. One in three global consumers said they would buy a co-branded luxury designer laptop, and one in four said they would buy a “designer” flat screen TV. One in six global consumers even said they would like to buy designer branded MP3’s and kitchen appliances.

“There seems to be huge market potential for luxury brands to evade every corner of the home and office,” said Dodd.

WASHINGTON — The two sides of the fashion industry squared off in Congress on Thursday over the issue of whether fashion designs should be protected by copyright law. A bill that would put more teeth into copyright protection for fashion designs that is trumpeted by the Council of Fashion Designers of America has been stuck in committee because of industry infighting. On Thursday, the pro-and-con cases were presented before a House committee by Narciso Rodriguez and the owner of a California apparel firm, respectively.

The CFDA is trying to bridge the divide with the rest of the apparel industry and has held discussions with the American Apparel and Footwear Association for over a year, according to the designer and written testimony from Kevin Burke, the association’s president and chief executive officer. The AAFA represents most of the industry’s major brands and companies.

Rodriguez, who claimed knockoffs of his designs take away millions of dollars a year from his business, told lawmakers he is “hopeful” the two associations will reach an agreement within a month on the language of the bill regarding the scope and risk of litigation.

Rodriguez laid out a case to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property on behalf of the CFDA in support of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, which has been introduced in both the House and Senate but has not moved out of committee. The subcommittee is expected to wait to see if the CFDA and the AAFA can reach a compromise on the acceptable language in the bill before voting whether to move the legislation.

The bill would amend current law to allow companies and designers to register their fashion designs for three years of copyright protection. Apparel, handbags, footwear, belts and eyeglass frames would be covered. The measure also would establish penalties for designers or companies knocking off designs. The fine would be $250,000, or $5 for each copied item, whichever was more.

“The more acclaimed America’s fashion designs become, the more they’re copied,” said Rodriguez in his testimony, citing a U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimate of $12 billion in lost revenues due to counterfeiting and piracy in the fashion and apparel industry in 2006. Rodriguez said he designs and puts together a 250-piece collection in one year over the course of six to 12 months for the fall and spring runway shows, which cost an average of $800,000 to stage. The fabric for samples costs another $800,000, pattern and design development costs $1.5 million, travel for design and fabric development reaches $350,000 and marketing rings up another $2.5 million.

“There are so many aspects of a fashion business that make it risky in the best of circumstances and the pirates are only making it riskier,” he said. The designer, whose firm sold a 50 percent stake to Liz Claiborne Inc. last year, told lawmakers about his passion and inspiration for design, singling out the dress he designed for Carolyn Bessette when she wed John F. Kennedy Jr. in 1996. Rodriguez later sold 40 of those dresses.

“The pirates sold 7 to 8 million copies,” he said. “It was very personal. I’ve been pirated so much that my brand has been diffused.” Young designers will not survive in the face of knockoffs that dilute the value of the original design, he told lawmakers, urging them to pass the bill. But the bill’s opponents argue that inspiration will be stifled by such legal restrictions, leaving thousands of companies exposed to frivolous lawsuits that could drive them out of business.

Steve Maiman, co-owner of Stony Apparel Corp., a moderate women’s and children’s apparel manufacturer based in Los Angeles, carried the flag for those in the industry who oppose the bill. “Extending the copyright laws to the fashion industry is thoroughly a bad idea,’ said Maiman. “The bill is misguided and unnecessary, for several reasons.”

Maiman told lawmakers the fashion industry has thrived without “help or interference” from this type of copyright law. He argued that it is “impossible to determine the originality of a design because all designs are inspired by existing designs and trends.” Maiman also said the bill would spark a steady stream of lawsuits and expose retailers to liability as well.

“We’re in this business to make cute garments at a fair price for the average American, not to sit in depositions in copyright lawsuits, arguing with lawyers over who invented an original style…of a kid’s top for $14.99 retail before it goes on sale,” Maiman said in his testimony.