Louis Vuitton Loses Trademark Lawsuit Over Joke Bag; Judge Tells Company To Maybe Laugh A Little Rather Than Sue
from the get-a-sense-of-humor dept
When I was very little, my father drove a 1972 Ford Pinto (yes, one of the exploding versions) that had a faded bumper sticker reading "My other car is a Porsche." I remember this very clearly because I remember, at a very young age, asking my father to explain the "joke" and still not really getting it. Of course, that "my other car is a..." joke has been around for a long time. It may not be a good joke, but it's a pretty well-known joke. Except, apparently, for the overly serious trademark lawyers at Louis Vuitton.We've covered Louis Vuitton's ridiculous trademark bullying for years -- including shutting down an art exhibit that commented on LV's trademarks, suing an artist for calling attention to the situation in Darfur by painting a refugee child holding a bag that kinda, but not really, looked like an LV bag, and suing Hyundai for showing a basketball decorated decorated with the LV symbols in a commercial for 1 second (incredibly, LV won that lawsuit for reasons I still can't understand). Yes, this brief image was "trademark infringement" according to the court:
Louis Vuitton is, by its own description, an “active[] and aggressive[]” enforcer of its trademark rights.... In some cases, however, it is better to “accept the implied compliment in [a] parody” and to smile or laugh than it is to sue.... This — like Haute Diggity Dog (and, arguably, Hyundai) — is such a case. MOB’s use of Louis Vuitton’s marks in service of what is an obvious attempt at humor is not likely to cause confusion or the blurring of the distinctiveness of Louis Vuitton’s marks; if anything, it is likely only to reinforce and enhance the distinctiveness and notoriety of the famous brand. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, MOB is entitled to summary judgment on all of Louis Vuitton’s claims; it follows that Louis Vuitton’s own motion for partial summary judgment must be and is denied.You'll notice the mention of that nutty Hyundai ruling in this one. Here, the judge distinguished the case from the Hyundai one, noting that in this case, unlike the Hyundai case, the commentary is clearly about Louis Vuitton and its brand, making it clearly parodying the mark itself. However, the judge also adds a footnote that more or less says that he probably would have decided that case differently too:
Even if Hyundai were not distinguishable, this Court would decline to follow it. In the Court’s view, the Hyundai Court blurred the distinction between association and dilution. As discussed in more detail below, association is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a finding of dilution by blurring.Either way, throughout the ruling you can see that the judge is mainly just frustrated that Louis Vuitton's lawyers can't just enjoy a joke. From the opening:
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (“Louis Vuitton”), the maker of Louis Vuitton bags, is perhaps unfamiliar with the “my other car” trope. Or maybe it just cannot take a joke.And, later, during the discussion on Hyundai, the judge again notes the lack of a sense of humor by LV's lawyers:
...the fact that Louis Vuitton at least does not find the comparison funny is immaterial; Louis Vuitton’s sense of humor (or lack thereof) does not delineate the parameters of its rights (or MOB’s rights) under trademark law.Either way, this is a good ruling, pushing back on yet another case of Louis Vuitton's trademark bullying. One hopes that the company will take up the judge's suggestion to maybe accept the compliment and laugh a little, but somehow that seems unlikely.
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: jokes, my other bag, my other car, parody, trademark
Companies: louis vuitton, lvmh, my other bag
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Louis who..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Louis who..
Voltage pictures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you can use the courts to bankrupt someone even if they win... "The medium is the message."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal humor
Send this case to Lowering The Bar and see if it gets written about so they can see what legal humor can be.
http://loweringthebar.net/ (href tags not allowed???)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seen on a LV exec's car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're made by child and adult slaves that are tied to conveyor belts in bangladesh. (for their own safety).
Any 'employee' attempting to escape the facility is simple murdered and the body thrown into nearby landfill.
Who the FUCK would want a bloodstained piece of shit bag sewn together with the tears and blood of children?
And thats not even counting how damn UGLY those bags are...seriously...they look like dollar store shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Hire An American Craftsman (to: Anonymous Coward, #7)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
smh at what Techdirt has become
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: smh at what Techdirt has become
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: smh at what Techdirt has become
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: smh at what Techdirt has become
Are you arguing that others do not get to exercise their right to criticize, parody and otherwise make fun of? Certain speech must be silenced if it offends the delicate sensibilities of a company that has no sense of humor.
The judge did exactly the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: smh at what Techdirt has become
The only fair use is paid use, and no-one is allowed to parody a company or their products without permission from the company itself!
Nothing is more important than copyright, patents, and the rights of companies to control what is and is not said about them, that 'free speech' crap take a hike, the profits and control of a company over their image and products trumps all!
/poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: smh at what Techdirt has become
[ link to this | view in chronology ]