Did Renee Graziano Rip Off Someone’s Brand For Her Shoe Line?

mobwivesKarenCandyBefore we get to the lead story, here is a very quick recap of Mob Wives.  Love goes to get her head examined. Love says that she was hit by an 18 wheeler and it cracked her skull. The doctor asks her if she has noticed a short temper. She starts listing all her violent episodes. Doctor writes furiously! The doctor basically tells her she has brain damage and to try not to beat people up. Karen and Ramona head back to Staten Island from Arizona. Drita goes to tell Carla that Love wants to kill her but Carla misses the point. Back at home, Ramona Rizzo plans her jailhouse wedding to Joe as if that is a perfectly normal thing to do. Renee spends time with AJ and tries to change her life. Love accuses Carla of stealing her angel logo. That’s about it.

On to the big news. It’s ironic that one of the storylines is about brand stealing. As it turns out, it’s Renee that may be in hot water for ripping off someone’s brand. Click through for the tea!

MobWivesReneeCandyRenee wants to start a new shoe line (with jewelry and body lotions because??)called Mob Candy. I guess that would sell in New York and New Jersey.  But there is just one itsy bitsy problem with that. Renee allegedly stole the name from a magazine she was on the cover of recently. Only Renee seems to have no memory to that and claims that the name just came to her.

I found the entire story on a site called mafiablog.com you can click the link for the whole story. Here is the gist of what the magazine is claiming:

“Not too long after the mob wives production company knew we were looking to put a mob wife on the cover of our magazine, they reached out to suggest Renee
Graziano. Me and Frankie D met with Jenn Graziano. Our goal was to talk our deal
out, so we could push forward. Only, we wanted Karen Gravano on the cover, if
anything.  Little did we know, Jenn was gung Ho to force the exposure for her
sister Renee.”

But the network had a different idea:

“VH1 had different plans apparently. They were contacting us pushing the desire
to film us doing a photoshoot with Karen Gravano, and interviews where I was
given the ok to ask any tough questions to Karen. Great minds think alike. While
the production company was pushing their flesh and blood, the network knew that
Gravano was their bread and butter. Everybody knows Sammy The Bull, right?”

So a compromise was reached:

“To keep our word, we created separate stories, and separate dual covers for each of them. Although costs were higher, Mob Candy integrity demanded we do the right thing. Jenn was specific about making sure we promised Renee her own
cover. Otherwise, we probably would have just done an inside story on Renee once
the networks wanted to film Karen. So, they both got their own covers, and
interior stories, and DiMatteo spend money printing the dual covers, along with
2 other covers as well.”

Then Renee ALLEGEDLY steal the brand name and the magazine is pissed:

“Not only is she just using the brand name pretending she never heard of it
before, she has also done interviews claiming the root of her Mob Candy name
idea came into her head randomly after thinking about how she loves colors, and
candy has different colors. And of course, she couldn’t forget to add the mob to
it, right? That’s how she got the idea!”

So what do you think? Did Renee ripoff the name Mob Candy? Answer in comments, if you dare…

About these ads


Filed under Mob Wives, mobsters, News, VH1

37 responses to “Did Renee Graziano Rip Off Someone’s Brand For Her Shoe Line?

  1. Dawn

    Exactly what anyone should expect when dealing with these kinds of people. No sympathy, and what’s with a ‘Mob” magazine?

  2. Anastasia Beaverhausen

    I think that the picture of Renee on the cover has been so touched up and airbrushed, if that’s really her then I’m Marilyn Monroe.

  3. Lori

    Is she popping pills again? – Just kidding (I think), but seriously, how can you not remember something you were just on the cover of? Answer: You can’t! SMH

  4. Ms1dimple

    Maybe Renee should have went to get her head examined instead of rehab.. Lolllll… I see a lawsuit coming

  5. This show. Karen is a hunk of shit. Spawn of a rat. A rat is the lowest life form possible. And she bred with a…gangsta? Not a gangster. Never married. No one’s “wife”. Drita…love her. But not Italian. Renee? Married a Spanish guy. Whatever. She’s a mess with no ability to fight. Carla is ok. But her husband was a white collar dude. Not mob. Ramona is a piglet. Spawned with a middle eastern guy. Love ang. Don’t know her past or if she wa ever really a mob wife.

    Anyway, the scene with Karen and her cousin where she is acting like there was something wrong with her uncle trying to kill her rat fuck father? Hysterical. She forgives them??? GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE. Pig bitch.

  6. Bella

    Karen is photoshopped to the Gawds. When did her chin stop sagging. Renee the ripoff. That’s all I got

  7. Mango

    Eeeeehhhh. Maybe. What did they expect? As for the magazine’s *brand* it might depend on whether Mob Candy the magazine trademarked its name. If not, then the rag is a full of b.s. as she is – made for each other.

  8. Mania

    Offtopic: did you see on Twitter that Kim Zolciak and Nene Leakes made up?

  9. Sars

    I really wonder wth this mag is and who reads it. Very odd.

  10. jakies mom

    Interesting that Love was canned from Mob Wives this week and wasn’t allowed to attend the reunion. She’s pissed and she hasn’t been holding back on her feelings about everyone or the show in her tweets.

  11. Susan Testa

    First I’d like to say I’m glad to have stumbled onto your blogspot. There are too many bloggers on the block who pick and choose what’s to be posted, ignoring the Constitution in the right for Freedom of Speech. I’m hoping you aren’t one of them. Renee claims the concept for Mob Candy came to her in a “creative” sitdown with herself even patting herself on the back for not being stoned to come up with this idea.. common sense says bullsht! I feel shadow publishing Mob Candys article regarding the thievery everywhere Renee sets up an advertisement for her footwear is the best way to initiate some sort of relief for the magazines reputation.

    • The constitution doesn’t give anyone the right to post whatever they want on someone’s blog. I retain the right to moderate all comments for whatever reason I desire. Just a point of fact. I agree with you about Renee. :)

      • Susan Testa

        Oh Wow! Much RESPECT for you Tamara.. you now have 5 new followers.. til word gets out you are one of two bloggers that are fair, then your numbers will grow large! I stand corrected regarding the Constitution and a personal page but if they blogged honestly and fairly, why such scrutiny? I know you can’t answer for them..but my comments were respectful and obscenity free.. go figure. You calmed my attitude with this Renee crap. Look forward to reading more of your articles.

  12. Susan Testa

    First I’d like to say I’m glad to have stumbled onto your blogspot. There are too many bloggers on the block who pick and choose what’s to be posted, ignoring the Constitution in the right for Freedom of Speech. I’m hoping you aren’t one of them. Renee claims the concept for Mob Candy came to her in a “creative” sitdown with herself even patting herself on the back for not being stoned to come up with this idea.. common sense says bullsht! I feel shadow publishing Mob Candys article regarding the thievery everywhere Renee sets up an advertisement for her footwear is the best way to initiate some sort of relief for the magazines reputation. This is not the only example of thievery shown as I was a subject to the same action. The concept for INTERCHANGEABLE HEELS aired as her own was taken verbatim from my facebook page. Someone pointed out earlier we shouldn’t be surprised by the thievery.. after all, it IS Mob Wives; I just think the blatant audacity was too classless. Speaking of classless-other bloggers such as Mistress, CSoprano and Ed Scarpo are biased in their choices to publish comments they don’t agree with.. I’m interested to see how fair you may be. Thank You for Your Time

  13. donna

    But of course Renee ( DO YOU KNOW MY FAWTHA IS) Graziano stole the logo.

  14. Darling Pink

    Big Ang ! The fragrance coming soon. This Big Scent has the “Bang” without the “B” Get it ! It’s ANG.

  15. Pamela

    Ahh…yeah she did, but thats ok cause now she’ll have to pay back any $ she may have earned. NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE (NOA)

    ISSUE DATE: Jul 30, 2013

    Serial Number: 85681509
    Docket/Reference Number:

    No opposition was filed for this published application. The issue date of this NOA establishes the due date for the filing of a Statement of Use (SOU) or a Request for Extension of Time to file a Statement of Use (Extension Request). WARNING: An SOU that meets all legal requirements must be filed before a registration certificate can issue. Please read below for important information regarding the applicant’s pending six (6) month deadline.

    SIX (6)-MONTH DEADLINE: Applicant has six (6) MONTHS from the NOA issue date to file either:
    - An SOU, if the applicant is using the mark in commerce (required even if the applicant was using the mark at the time of filing the application, if use basis was not specified originally); OR
    - An Extension Request, if the applicant is not yet using the mark in commerce. If an Extension Request is filed, a new request must be filed every six (6) months until the SOU is filed. The applicant may file a total of five (5) extension requests. WARNING: An SOU may not be filed more than thirty-six (36) months from when the NOA issued. The deadline for filing is always calculated from the issue date of the NOA.

    How to file SOU and/or Extension Request:
    Use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Do NOT reply to this e-mail, as e-mailed filings will NOT be processed. Both the SOU and Extension Request have many legal requirements, including fees and verified statements; therefore, please use the USPTO forms available online at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html (under the “INTENT-TO-USE (ITU) FORMS” category) to avoid the possible omission of required information. If you have questions about this notice, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199.

    For information on how to (1) divide an application; (2) delete goods/services (or entire class) with a Section 1(b) basis; or (3) change filing basis, see http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/MoreInfo_SOU_EXT.jsp.



    If you believe this NOA should not have issued or correction of the information shown below is needed, you must submit a request to the Intent-to-Use Unit. Please use the “Post-Publication Amendment” form under the “POST-PUBLICATION/POST NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE (NOA) FORMS” category, available at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html. Do NOT reply to this e-mail, as e-mailed filings will NOT be processed.

    Serial Number: 85681509
    Docket/Reference Number:
    Correspondence Address: ATTORNEY MICHAEL CHERNIN
    735 N WATER ST
    MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-4100

    This application has the following bases, but not necessarily for all listed goods/services:
    Section 1(a): NO Section 1(b): YES Section 44(e): NO


    035 - Administration of a discount program for enabling participants to obtain discounts on goods and services through use of a discount membership card; Advertising, marketing, and promoting the goods and services of others via promotion exhibits, video products, Internet, excluding jewelry; Arranging and conducting auctions in the field of promotional events, excluding jewelry; Computerized on-line retail store services in the field of video products, clothing, health and beauty products, all excluding jewelry; Electronic catalog services featuring retail products featuring a wide variety of consumer goods of others, clothing, video products, excluding jewelry; On-line retail store services featuring a wide variety of consumer goods of others, exclusive of jewelry — FIRST USE DATE: NONE; — USE IN COMMERCE DATE: NONE


    Fraudulent statements may result in registration being cancelled: Applicants must ensure that statements made in filings to the USPTO are accurate, as inaccuracies may result in the cancellation of any issued trademark registration. The lack of a bona fide intention to use the mark with ALL goods and/or services listed in an application or the lack of actual use on all goods and/or services for which use is claimed could jeopardize the validity of the registration, possibly resulting in its cancellation.

    Additional information: For information on filing and maintenance requirements for U.S. trademark applications and registrations and required fees, please consult the USPTO website at http://www.uspto.gov or call the Trademark Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199.

    Checking status: To check the status of an application, go to http://tarr.uspto.gov. Please check the status of any application at least every three (3) months after the application filing date.

    To view this notice and other documents for this application on-line, go to http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85681509. NOTE: This notice will only be available on-line the next business day after receipt of this e-mail.

  16. Heather

    Gotta love how some people are making comments about these Mob Wives…. Comments I guarantee you’d never say to their face.

    • Anonymous

      It does not appear to be a personal issue between Ms. Graziano and Mr. Wasserman, Heather. It does appear to be one that should be addressed in a Civil matter between the two parties.

    • Leetz

      Yep I’d love to see them say it to there face,
      What I would like to know however is if you don’t like these kind of people or this show why do you watch it?????i love it it’s hilarious who cares what they do. It does not affect my life in anyway it’s just a tv program???
      If I don’t like something I don’t watch it.
      MOB CANDY is a better name for shoes anyway.

      • Tunechie Tune

        I completely agree with you Leetz!! I don’t understand why everybody is so worried about what anyone from Mob Wives is doing or what the next person is doing for that matter. Its not affecting your lives in any way, shape or form so what does it matter. People need to learn to mind their own business and keep their day jobs. Everyone has so much negative things to say about Mob Wives but continue watching it…that makes a lot of sense…yeah right!!

  17. shery parcell

    ur all haters. if anyone deserves the name its her. shes legit. what do ALL girls call their shoes but their candy. ergo Renee is mob legit. The magazine should be flattered. they sell paper she wants to sale shoes,jewels,lotion. you cant R. trade mark the world.

  18. Denise Carswell

    What difference does it make as long as they sale. But they shoul be discounted.

  19. dorothy

    i think renee didnt still the name an she is very beautiful makeup or not and people are so negative on other people life she has been through a lot stop with the name calling

  20. Sherrie Carey

    All I know is I love the show my kids watch it,,and shit open a store upstate and I’d run it for you bet shit would sell,, fuxk all u hates,

    • Anonymous

      It’s not about hating Sherrie, Dorothy. From what I know, Mr. Dimatteo owns Mobcandy magazine, which Ms. Graziano appeared on the cover, as other celebrities have. Again, from what I know, it appears shortly after appearing on the cover of Mobcandy magazine, she started promoting her own Mobcandy business. Early on, I am not sure what Ms. Graziano was promoting in her line of business. I don’t know if it was jewelry, clothing, shoes, etc. When asked, Ms. Graziano said she came up with her business name Mobcandy from her like of candy, and the name Mob, from the show that she said she is currently a character of. That is, quite frankly, rediculous. Ms. Graziano may be nice. She may or may not be beautiful. She may be a great character on the show and otherwise, but Ms. Graziano is a thief. From what I also understand, there is a Trademark issue Ms. Graziano may have to address in the future. A Mr. Heath Norman Wasserman appears to have a Mobcandy Trademark. Why these two individuals have not addressed this matter I cannot understand. It is my opinion, obviously Ms. Graziano is a thief. I don’t agree with what Ms. Graziano is doing unless she and Mr. Dimatteo and Mr. Wasserman have worked something out. My knowledge is limited, but I do not believe that is the case.

  21. donna

    YOU DAMN SKIPPY RENEE STOLE THE NAME! She’s drinking to much Vino & popping them Xanax!

  22. Gabby

    I can tell you what Wasserman and DiMatteo are waiting for….For Renee to become worth suing. She hasnt made enough money from those ridiculous looking shoes…or even worse, the 90′s style dresses. The jewelry is more than offensive. I love a nice piece of bold jewelery .. but Renee’s stuff is just tasteless. She really needs to get her act together.

Please DO NOT POST LINKS. Do Not use childish nicknames for "Celebrities."

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s