Louis Vuitton Touts Basketball Trademark Victory In Similar Lawsuit Against Warner Bros.
from the trademark-hangover dept
We recently wrote about the terrible ruling in which a district court said Hyundai had diluted Louis Vuitton's trademarks with a one-second clip of a mock LV basketball in a commercial. Now THR reports that Louis Vuitton has included that ruling as part of a new filing in another ongoing trademark suit against Warner Bros., over a scene in The Hangover Part II that briefly shows (and refers to) a Louis Vuitton bag. Warner Bros. is seeking summary judgement in that case, on the quite sensible grounds that featuring trademarks and brands in a film is protected speech under the First Amendment, but Louis Vuitton is using the Hyundai ruling as a counterweapon:
The French brand says that judge's decision two weeks ago shows why it should be able to go forward with its claims against Warner Bros. for infringing and diluting its trademark by showing, for one brief moment in the movie, Zach Galifianakis telling someone who pushes his bag, “Be careful, that is … that is a Lewis Vuitton.”
...
"As Judge Castel recently ruled in Louis Vuitton v. Hyundai, Louis Vuitton's 'aggressive' enforcement of its trademark rights and prompt action against those who misuse its trademarks are necessary concomitants of its exclusive rights in the brand," the French company says in a court filing.
This is how a law gets out of hand: each bad ruling diminishes its intent a little further, until it no longer serves its original purpose. This is a big part of what happened to copyright law, and bullies like Louis Vuitton are causing a similar erosion of trademark: a shift from laws that benefit everyone to laws that grant broad powers of ownership and control to rightsholders, infringing on freedom of speech in the process. Of course, Warner Bros. has been through something similar before, when the artist behind Mike Tyson's face tattoo sued over the very same movie—though that was a copyright issue, and settled confidentially. The argument against trademark dilution is likely even stronger than the argument against copyright infringement, but it remains to be seen how Warner Bros. will respond to Louis Vuitton's latest move.
Of course, as always, one can't ignore the irony of Warner Bros.—a big proponent of stronger intellectual property laws—fighting against overly restrictive trademarks, and citing the First Amendment in the process. This hypocrisy is something media companies don't want to acknowledge: as content producers and distributors, they rely on the very freedoms and fair use exceptions that they are constantly seeking to curtail.
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: bad ruling, free speech, the hangover
Companies: hyundai, louis vuitton, warner bros
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Live by the sword ...
apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So LV doesn't like free advertising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So LV doesn't like free advertising?
Yes, and THAT is what will "dilute" their brand--not a few frames in a car commercial, or three seconds of some silly sequel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So LV doesn't like free advertising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As sad as the eventuality would be, it would amuse me immensely if they succeeded in curtailing Fair Use. Watching their own ability to produce and distribute become curtailed to the point where they can no longer profit from their content would be hilarious.
Serves them right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we'll get lucky ...
Let us rejoice in watching the bullies making themselves extinct. Popcorn, anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe we'll get lucky ...
Also, [redacted] makes the best popcorn. You can go to [redacted] as they have the best price for popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe we'll get lucky ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Maybe we'll get lucky ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Maybe we'll get lucky ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's about time for Iowa to tax the piss out of Louis Vuitton
March 08, 2012
If an Iowa Department of Revenue position on interstate income taxation stands, the limits set by Congress in 1959 on taxation of out-of-state corporations (PL 86-272) will become a dead letter. The Department is attempting to tax Jack Daniels -- whose only connection to Iowa is the sale of liquor to the Iowa state wholesale liquor monopoly -- based on the use of its trademarks in Iowa.
PL 86-272, enacted under the Constitutional authority given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, prohibits states from taxing corporations whose only business in the state is the shipping of goods from out-of-state. The states are always trying to get around this, and Iowa gave itself a victory on this score when the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that KFC was taxable on royalties received from its Iowa franchisees even though KFC itself had no property, employees or operations in Iowa. Now the Department is turning this victory up to 11. From the Administrative Law Judge ruling in favor of the Department in an appeal by Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. and Southern Comfort Properties, Inc, members of the Brown-Forman group.
The department’s regulations are consistent with the supreme court’s interpretation of the statute. The regulations define “intangible property located or having a situs in this state” to include intangible property that “has become an integral part of some business activity occurring regularly in Iowa.” 701 IAC 52.1(1)(d), 52.1(4). The regulations expressly cite Geoffrey, which is the same case the department cited in the letters it sent to the protesters. The regulations go on to state that, if a corporation owns trademarks and trade names that are used in Iowa, a business situs for purpose of taxation may be present even though the corporation has no physical presence or other contact with Iowa.
It is, of course, impossible for anybody who sells anything in Iowa other than generic products to avoid having "trademarks and trade names that are used in Iowa." As long as this position stands, it means that Iowa has weaseled its way around legislation designed to prevent this very result.
The Department of Revenue is entirely out of line here, but they will keep it up as long as they can get away with it -- and the KFC decision shows that Iowa's courts will let them get away with plenty. Congress is way overdue in restricting these overly aggressive positions by state revenue departments. Of course these overly-aggressive decisions are harder on smaller businesses, who have fewer resources to spend on tax compliance than Brown-Forman does.
It's also time for Iowa to form an independent tax court. The next time an administrative law judge opposes the Department on a significant issue may be the first time.
Finally, the Supreme Court should take another state tax case. The states have eroded the 1991 Quill decision to irrelevance with positions like this. It appears that the Supreme Court has to slap the states every couple of decades to keep them within the law.
So LV, stop selling merch in Iowa (and any other state that may come up with this kind of thinking), or choke on your "trademark" by drowning in taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]