Ridiculous: Court Says Mock Basketball Which Appears In Hyundia Commercial For 1 Second 'Dilutes' LV Trademark
from the are-they-insane? dept
A little over two years ago, we wrote about what we considered to be an absolutely insane lawsuit from Louis Vuitton, arguing that a mock basketball, which appeared in a Hyundai commercial for one second violated LV's trademark. You can see the commercial below:If you missed it (entirely possible), at the 3 second mark, this image flashes briefly:
The point of the commercial is to get people to imagine what life would be like if "luxury" items were everyday items, and thus the mock basketball with symbols designed to suggest a luxury bag, like a Louis Vuitton bag. As we (and many, many trademark experts) suggested when the lawsuit was filed, the claims here are simply crazy. There is simply no harm whatsoever done to Louis Vuitton by this ad. Most people wouldn't even notice the markings and if they did, what possible "harm" would it do? The answer is none. There is no consumer confusion whatsoever. There are no LV basketballs that won't be sold because of this (in fact, the judge in this case notes that, after seeing this commercial, some people wanted one -- which would suggest a market opportunity, rather than litigation).
Of course, Louis Vuitton's complaint didn't rest on the bedrock of trademark law -- the likelihood of confusion -- but a more modern bastardization of trademark law called "dilution." The concept of dilution in trademark law is an affront to the purpose of trademark law, which is supposed to be about protecting consumers from confusion. That is, it's supposed to be about preventing someone from buying Bob's Cola, thinking that it's really Coca-Cola. But there's no such risk here. Dilution, however, flips the very concept of trademark law on its head and pretends (falsely) that trademark law is about protecting a company's trademarks from anyone doing anything at all with it that the company doesn't like.
Unfortunately, the courts don't always get things right -- which is why we get such ridiculous lawsuits in the first place -- and here, amazingly, the district court has sided with Louis Vuitton in its dilution argument, granting summary judgment on Hyundia's liability for dilution, while it rejected Hyundai's movement for summary judgment rejecting all of Louis Vuitton's claims. This is, in many ways, horrifying.
Eric Goldman's summary, linked above, highlights the many problems with the ruling -- while cautioning that the details suggest this type of ruling is limited. Still, as he notes:
And then we have an opinion like this--where the court finds trademark dilution without finding infringement (not resolved yet) and in a situation where EVERYONE can immediately tell there was zero harm to the brand owner. Rulings like this make trademark academics shudder in fear that trademark dilution will swallow up all of trademark law and confer rights-in-gross to trademark owners. While I don't share those fears for reasons I'll explain in a bit, unquestionably this is a bad ruling.Goldman goes on to highlight some of the more specific problems with the ruling, but the key point is simply that there is no harm here. None. Absolutely none. Perhaps less than none, given the reports of interest in LV basketballs. When the law doesn't care about that, then the law is, unquestionably, broken. A ruling like this automatically lessens respect for trademark law, because it makes no sense at all. It makes a mockery of the judicial system by suggesting that lawsuits like this have any merit whatsoever.
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, dilution, eric goldman
Companies: hyundai, louis vuitton
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well, there goes Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/03/45292.htm
Apparently it's against the law to post public data on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only way they could have gotten this information was to query private, supposedly confidential records (credit cards, etc.)
THAT is what the lawsuit is about, NOT public information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"IMDB and Amazon failed to convince the court that it had permission to mine public records for Hoang's birth date under the website's subscriber agreement or privacy policy."
Seriously, what makes people comment on stuff they're completely ignorant about?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Hey! That actor kinda looks like the guy in our logo!"
*LAWSUIT*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What do you call a lawyer with an IQ of 75?
Your Honor.
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to have one!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to have one!
wlowry1023@me.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One Question:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The scary part is that Trademark/Copyright/Patent is becoming so broken and evil that I wouldn't be surprised if this goes ahead...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the "L" and "V"?
So did this court really say that any repeating pattern of shapes is a dilution of the LV trademark?
I guess I need to disable the "step and repeat" functions in all my graphics programs now. And what about all those backdrops used for press conferences? Those have repeating patterns too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the "L" and "V"?
You know, like you get from throwing things down.
or otherwise derived
from the people who own or use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where's the "L" and "V"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ROFLMAO! I love when you whine about trademark law. "The law is supposed to be about something other than what the law is actually about." AWESOME logic! And, silly Mike, you do know that trademark law has ALWAYS (for centuries) been about more than "protecting consumers from confusion," right? The fact that you deny this shows what a loon you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell me - are there any consumers who were confused that Louis Vuitton made basketballs, now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or maybe..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Or maybe..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From now on, if you want to use an example of luxury, explicitly mention that you can't use LV as an example of luxury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diluting my brand image
Together with God (as he holds the patent on the blue sky) feel our brand has been diluted by this add as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, instead they sue.
Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Activist Judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Activist Judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]