Louis Vuitton Sues Hyundai Over A Louis Vuitton Basketball
from the do-morons-in-a-hurry-play-basketball? dept
Yesterday, I saw that Marty Schwimmer had posted a link to a Hyundai commercial asking if anyone saw the "lawsuit" in the commercial:Louis Vuitton is notoriously (and ridiculously) aggressive when it comes to trademark infringement. A couple years back we wrote about LVMH (parent company of Louis Vuitton) suing a Darfur fundraiser for creating a t-shirt of a Darfur victim "pimped out" to look like Paris Hilton, including a designer handbag with symbols made to look like the LV symbols.
So, yes, that's exactly what this lawsuit is about. DSchneider points us to the Consumerist's article laying out the details and I've embedded the lawsuit filing below:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: basketball, commercial, louis vuitton, luxury, trademark
Companies: hyundai, lvmh
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How much does a Louis Vuitton suit cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Louis, please don't sue me
O + O +
LVMH ascii art
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The puntacular punny punster:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The puntacular punny punster:
True. One might say they've put a full court press on infringement....
"A couple years back we wrote about LVMH (parent company of Louis Vuitton) suing a Darfur fundraiser for creating a t-shirt of a Darfur victim "pimped out" to look like Paris Hilton, including a designer handbag with symbols made to look like the LV symbols."
Yeah, they really dropped the ball on that one....
"So, yes, that's exactly what this lawsuit is about. DSchneider points us to the Consumerist's article laying out the details and I've embedded the lawsuit filing below:"
Sounds like their pursuing Hyundai up and down the court (DOUBLE PUN POINTS!)
"Frankly, this lawsuit is ridiculous. LVMH is claiming that people might be confused?"
I agree. The defense has a slam dunk case....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The puntacular punny punster:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
New word of the day for Probably will?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Prolly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Prolly?
On a side note, AWDaholic, I'm interested in the site you referenced. I actually picked up a used A4 last year for well below the KBB value and while I haven't really done much looking for sites, I only knew about Audizine. I'll have to check out. I don't really live on the forums like I used to when I had my older cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hate Me Today
First, let me say, that you didn't see any other "Branded" products in this commercial, only LVMH. Second, it is customary to get permission from the Brand Holder whenever you use their Branded Items in any type of recorded materials. Third, as has been stated over and again here, the law itself could be the causation for these lawsuits.
So, why didn't Hyundai include any other Branded Items in their commercial? Why not show people eating a Branded Chocolate like Ghiaradali (SP) or the like? Is it because when you do so, you are supposed to get people's approval? Why didn't Hyundai ask LVMH for approval? Seriously, are there not other High-Brands out there that LVMH couldn't have received approval from and used, that they just chose LVMH and hoped it all worked out ok?
As people have said again and again here, the Law itself requires the Holders to aggressively pursue infringements in court to protect their Copyrights. LVMH is doing this, perhaps because they don't want anyone thinking it's "ok" to use their Branded Property or Brands, in any other works.
Do I think sometimes Copyright holders go well above what they should to protect their Copyrights? No doubt, but the flip side says there are reasons they do this, and perhaps if they would change the Laws, these company's wouldn't work so hard at keeping their Brands?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate Me Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hate Me Today
You've got your points wrong.
The Hyundai commercial did attempt to brand the basketball so that it resembled the LV trademarked design.
The gold-colored shapes are on a brown, leather-type surface. This is the same as the well-known image of LV bags.
They did use the stylized LV. It is directly above the base of the thumb next to the seam of the basketball.
The gold-colored bullseye-looking shapes and crosses are almost identical to the circles and crosses used in the trademarked LV bags.
And despite what you may think is asinine, the court is actually the final judge.
But suppose a commercial for a LV handbag was to show a toy car with a Hyundai logo on it driving into an LV bag.
Let's say the commercial made the statement that everyone wants to live in an LV world.
I guarantee you that Hyundai would have sued to keep LV from using the Hyundai logo without permission.
And one of the points would have been that people might be confused that Hyundai was making toy cars.
I'm getting tired of TechDirt's attempts to confuse its readers (and obviously Anonymous Coward, you are very confused) as to the rights companies have to keep others from using and abusing their logos and trademarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate Me Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Check your eyes
Sorry you can't see it.
Get your eyes checked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Check your eyes
Before you tell someone to check their eyes, I think you should make it clear that it's not visible in the picture the other AC linked to, but it is clear when you pause the video in the right spot and you're watching it in higher quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hate Me Today
I guarantee you that Hyundai would have sued to keep LV from using the Hyundai logo without permission. [/i]
So you are a trademark lawyer that knows that for sure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate Me Today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate Me Today
While it may be customary, it's not legally required. The only reason that it became customary was to avoid frivilous lawsuits from overly agressive trademark holders like LV.
Third, as has been stated over and again here, the law itself could be the causation for these lawsuits.
The thing is the law doesn't actually require that companies be this aggresive in protecting their trademark. The problem is that the company's actions is not based on defending the trademark in terms of its actual purpose i.e. consumer protection. Their actions stem from their belief that a trademark is an actual form of property i.e. "intellectual property". In other words, if they understood that the real purpose of trademark was to protect the consumer, all they'd have to do is apply the moron-in-a-hurry test to realize that they didn't need to sue. But because they view trademark as property, they feel like they had to sue (even though they don't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hate Me Today
You may have a point if you're talking about Trademarks rather than Copyrights. Trademark holders are required to protect their marks from any use that would genericize it (for example, using the term "Band-Aid" to refer to any brand of bandage other than Johnson & Johnson's), otherwise they risk losing the exclusive right to that mark.
Copyright holders are under no such requirement. They may selectively sue some infringing uses and ignore or even encourage others (i.e. fan-fiction) without any risk of losing their copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Label Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it infringe. I don't think so but I'm not an expert on trademark law. I will say that I would think that the legal dept. at Hyundai should have spotted that when they reviewed the commercial and at least discussed the ramifications. Maybe they think they are in the right or the cost involved with defending the suit will be less than the profit from the exposure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is it not funny that a luxury textile company is suing a company who is trying to bring luxury to those who can't normally afford luxury items? All over a product that LV does not make?
The commercial would have been more effective if they would have used a golden basketball rim and a normal ball. Unless they were wanting to get free advertising by this lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it infringe?
I hope they win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does it infringe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about asking a trademark lawyer for a comment
Instead of just mouthing off and stating that the lawsuit is ridiculous, how about finding a trademark lawyer and asking her/him what the actual law is about.
That way your blog would be more educational that masturbatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about asking a trademark lawyer for a comment
Intellectual property laws are an aberration of the natural law that surrounds us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about asking a trademark lawyer for a comment
I did. He told me it was ridiculous, and a sign of (hang on, lemme find the quote) "the insanity that trademark law has become."
Either way my comment on the ridiculousness of it was not from a legal perspective, but from a *common sense* perspective. The lawsuit makes no common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And next time quote the lawyer
It will make your own personal statements mean more.
Already I am more likely to believe in your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And next time quote the lawyer
OR Mike could just post "Blah blah blah", that way, we can all believe that, indeed, Mike thinks that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dilution not confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution not confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dilution not confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crisatunity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only reasonable response from Hyundai is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
Actually, if I had seen this, I would've assumed that LV had arranged for some kind of Product Placement deal with Hyundai.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if is the problem....
Why in the world does anyone pay ridiculous amounts of money for a purse of quetionable quality? So that one can tell the world I CAN AFFORD THIS AND YOU CAN'T. If suddenly my brand gets associated with afforability I am dead. Yes dead.
The theme of affordable luxuary is a direct attack on the very soul of LV and its reason to exist. And my guess is that they would be able to prevail. Dilution? The doctrine has a miserable succes rate since it was formally incorporate into US law. But trademark law is often decided by courts on a subjective/ equitable basis. Even before dilution courts were able to stretch and twist trademark doctrine to fit the circumstances never meant for trademark infrigement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if is the problem....
Why in the world does anyone pay ridiculous amounts of money for a purse of questionable quality? So that one can tell the world I CAN AFFORD THIS AND YOU CAN'T. If suddenly my brand gets associated with afforability I am dead. Yes dead.
The theme of affordable luxuary is a direct attack on the very soul of LV and its reason to exist. And my guess is that they would be able to prevail. Dilution? The doctrine has a miserable succes rate since it was formally incorporated into US law. But trademark law is often decided by courts on a subjective/ equitable basis. Even before dilution courts were able to stretch and twist trademark doctrine to fit circumstances never meant for trademark infrigement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]