Fashion

Here's Why Kim Kardashian Is Changing The Name Of Her New Brand Kimono

by Bella Gerard
Updated: 
Originally Published: 

A young Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana once sang the following advice, and it has stayed on my mind (and in my party playlist) ever since: "Nobody's perfect, I've got to work it, again and again 'til I get it right." Ain't that the truth! And speaking of reworking things to get it right, it appears one of my fave celebs also has this tune on her party playlist, as it's been announced that Kim Kardashian is changing her Kimono brand name. Did anyone see this coming? I kind of saw this coming, and I couldn't be more relieved that Kim took the backlash to heart and decided to make a change.

ICYMI, Kim K broke the Internet for about the thousandth time in her career when she announced her new shapewear solutions brand — however, while her fans were excited for the pieces, which would be available in nine shades of nude and sizes XXS-4X, the brand name itself had many consumers peeved, and rightly so. All of Kim's companies (Kimoji, KKW Beauty, et cetera) have her own name incorporated into their brand names, but many felt calling her undergarment company Kimono was offensive to the traditional Japanese garb. Kardashian is not Japanese, she is not actually selling kimonos, and when she tried to trademark the word "kimono," fans really gew upset.

At first, Kardashian defended her brand name, and insisted she wouldn't be changing it:

In a piece published by The New York Times on June 27 regarding the brand name controversy, Kardashian spoke her truth, and made it clear that she felt her brand name was perfectly acceptable. “I understand and have deep respect for the significance of the kimono in Japanese culture,” Kardashian told the Times. She also addressed the trademarking issue, and claimed the following, “Filing a trademark is a source identifier that will allow me to use the word for my shapewear and intimates line but does not preclude or restrict anyone, in this instance, from making kimonos or using the word kimono in reference to the traditional garment," she clarified to the Times.

Still, the backlash continued, and finally, Kardashian posted on her social media to let fans know she had taken their feedback to heart:

"Being an entrepreneur and my own boss has been one of the most rewarding challenges I’ve been blessed with in my life. What’s made it possible for me after all of these years has been the direct line of communication with my fans and the public," wrote Kardashian in the caption of her July 1 Instagram post. "I am always listening, learning and growing - I so appreciate the passion and varied perspectives that people bring to me," she continued.

Then, she hit us with the real talk. "When I announced the name of my shapewear line, I did so with the best intentions in mind. My brands and products are built with inclusivity and diversity at their core and after careful thought and consideration, I will be launching my Solutionwear brand under a new name," she wrote, and honestly, snaps to you, Kim. I respect a woman that holds her own and stands by her truth, but I admire even more someone who can take feedback to heart and responde with a proactive desire to right any wrongs.

The shapewear line is still coming soon, but it will no longer be called Kimono, although for the time being the brand's Instagram account still holds the name:

When you've got 142 million followers watching your every move, I imagine it must be especially difficult to admit you're wrong, so I'm glad Kardashian did the right thing and listened to her upset audience. While the brand should've not been named Kimono in the first place, I appreciate her transparency in admitting her mistakes and promising change, and I look forward to trying the shapewear pieces when they do launch under a new name. Might I suggest sticking with KKW Body, as it's worked well for her figure-shaped fragrance and body makeup collection? Any new name will be an improvement, and I'm excited to hear what she ends up selecting.

This article was originally published on