Louis Vuitton Malletier V Dooney & Bourke Inc

Louis Vuitton Malletier v Dooney & Bourke Inc. In this non sufficient shield cognize as the Battle of the Hand foots Louis Vuitton (LV) sues Dooney & Burke (D&B) for brand hybridization trespass of its multicolore line. The Plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier ,is a french mold ho commit founded in 1854 by Louis Vuitton. The celebrated label is puff uphead known for its LV monogram, which is featured on intimately of its discoverputs. Louis Vuitton is considered as one of the worlds roughly expensive and prestigious brands. The LV monogram was becomed in 1896 by Louis son Georges Vuitton who invented the symbol and the garner represent his fathers initials.The logo is a Japanese-inspired flower motif which initially was created as a way to continue counterfeiting. This memorable logo is now synonymous with luxury, brilliance and indulgence. It is the worlds 29th most valuable brand and is estimated to be worth e verywhere $19 billion USD. unfortunately, Louis Vuit ton is one of the most counterfeited brands in the style world repayable to its image as a status symbol. The comp whatever(prenominal) takes counterfeiting seriously, and offices all its possible resources to shin counterfeiting. The Defendant, Dooney & Bourke, is an Ameri tramp comp whatever(prenominal) founded in 1975 by Peter Dooney and Frederic Bourke.The beau monde specializes in fashion accessories and is best known for its high theatrical role handbags, accessories, and travel luggage. Their touch modality and Mini Signature handbags consist of the DB initials interlocking in a repeating pattern. The fo lows of the company started arrive at with ii introductory outputs surcingle belts and suspenders for men. Their proceedss became very touristed cod to their odd bod and color. right off Dooney & Bourke is a healthful-known brand in America and has a good study for making gauge products. The defining fall in a bun in the oven of Dooney & Bourke is ele gant and sophisticated, and higher up all, it is timeless.Its unspotted tendencys shape these handbags the perfect accessory for any outfit due to the superior quality and unique form. In 2002, the marker Marc Jacobs invited the Japanese artist Takashi Murakami to come up with a fresh take on the Louis Vuitton toile monogram famous entwined LV logo intermixed with flower shapes for a new line of bags. This led to the reality of the Monogram Multicolore design, in 33 colors, displayed on handbags in a repeating pattern against a white or black background. The bags do their debut on Paris runways in October 2002 and were consequently presented in prestige retail outlets in March 003, where they sold for up to $3,950. Previously LV registered its famous LV monogram design pattern and the individual unique shapes as lettuces with the coupled States Patent and denounce Office. In July 2003 D in co run with Teen Vogue developed a new line of handbags for teenagers. It was la unched as the It bag collection. The pattern on the purses consisted of the entwined DB initials printed in contracting colors on medley of colored backgrounds and white and black background. D released handbag line looked similar to Louis Vuittons trendy model, but the price was signifi chamberpottly lower.Considering the incident that Louis Vuitton fights counterfeiting very predatoryly, non surprisingly, the matter cease up in the coquette of laws. LV this instant viewed the It Bag as a re-create of their design. When Louis Vuitton ga at that placed with legal counsel on their options to file suit against Dooney and Bourke, they became awargon of the alternatives that were on tap(predicate) to them in read to move forward. For designers and manufacturers in the American Fashion industry, there be four possible avenues to explore 1) procure safeguard, 2) Patent shield, 3) Trade Dress security department and 4) ear visage protection.Copyright protection c ever ywheres a simulacrum of categories including literacy, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pictorial and architectural works. Within this range, the further one that is applicable to fashion designs is pictorial, as it shields two- and three- dimensional works. Patent protection shields any new and magnetic coreive process, machine, manufacture, or opus of matter, or any new and useful im installment thereof. Since the design in the fashion industry rarely creates a new process, machine or manufactures, they dupe a separate statute particularisedally for them for new, original and ornamental design for an hold of manufacture.Trade dress protection is communicate on a lower floor the Lanham Act to defend the design and look of the product as well as that of the container and all elements making up the bring visual image by which the product is presented to customers. Colors confound also been addressed downstairs the Trade dress protection in which the United States Supre me romance has give tongue to that the color and designs of a product are only protected under the Lanham Act if a collateral centre has been demonstrated.Color and design essential be associated by the customer for that particular product over time. In 2004, the legal team opinionated to advance with option 4 Trade signalise protection. They claimed stigmatise infringement, stylemark dilution, as well as unfair rivalry and dishonorable designation. Trademark infringement harbors a manufacturer or sellers product to include a watchword, slogan or symbol. For instance, Apple is an utilization of a word that cannot be used in kindred with software or computers as it go out take in perplexity from a consumers perspective.Nike holds the stylemark of the slogan Just Do It that is associated with its product and McDonalds hold trademark of the golden arches symbol. In some instances this protection can extend to other properties such(prenominal)(prenominal) as its color or take down its packaging. For trademark dilution claims, the classifiable quality of a mark must be thin by blurring or tarnishment. However, the desireliness of perplexity is not necessary. Unfair competition and saturnine designation is characterized as likely to cause confusion, dislocate or deceive the consumer. contribution 43(a) states any soul who on or in connection with any goods or service, or any container goods, used in moneymaking(prenominal)ism any word, term, name or symbol, or device, or any combination therefore, or any fake designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading theatrical of fact which a) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval or her goods, services, or mercenary activities by another person, or (b) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepre sents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of his or her or another persons goods, services or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. In addition under sections 32 and 43(a) of the Lanham Act, trademark protection extends above the registered trade label to the unregistered trademarks from misuse or sound reflection in commerce. Once a trademark is found as fundamentally distinctive or to have developed secondary meaning, as well as protection under the Lanham Act, one can indeed address the likelihood of confusion under trademark infringement.Statutes carry a mavin of clear instance situation as well as a specific element of which the claim can be turn outn as a misdemeanour of the legal philosophy. This means that sequential certify is needed, as this poses the validity of the claim and further impinge ons the plea of the strip. Without this e vidence, the caseful could be deemed as void, as there is no possible evidence that can prove the claim. Statutes also require the clarity of the case, which means the details of the case or the encroachment should be given in chronological coiffe so that the justifications set for the claim as well as the laws that could be used to make it more than justified could be licitly provided. on that point is actually a varied translation on how infringements of laws happen. There are measure when a crime committed whitethorn not be a violation of the law, or the violation of the law is not a crime. This happens when the crime being claimed is not part of the scope of the statute, or there is no existing law for such crime. Therefore this results in deliberating on whether the action indeed is a crime or a violation of the law. Situations such as this often arise from actions where the suspect is unknowledgeable of the law which he has violated. In addition, the claimant can be the one who is ignorant of the law when he laid evidence on the crime allegedly committed by the defendant.Now that we have a thorough disposition of the applicable laws, the rules that govern those laws and what are infallible by the statutes to prove a violation of law we can examine how the case unfolded. As precedently stated, Vuitton filed suit against D&B in April of 2004 in the United States territory flirt for the Southern District of New York, claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation, and trademark dilution. Vuitton moved for a preliminary command against D&B which would have stopped sales of the it bag until the case was resolved. The District royal motor lodge control in favor of D&B and Vuitton was not granted the injunction. In determine trademark infringement the court apply the two prong try out required of Section 43 of the Lanham Act.First the test looks to whether or not the mark merits protection by find out if the unr egistered trademark is distinctive or has achieved secondary meaning. In this case the territory court did find that Vuittons design was distinctive and had garnered secondary meaning in the mart place. The second part of the test involves deciding whether the defendants use of the mark is likely to cause consumers confusion as to the origin or sponsorship of the defendants goods. Accordingly the court then examined the eighter brokers weighed in determining likelihood of confusion 1) the strength of the mark, 2) the resemblance amidst the marks, 3) the proximity of the roducts, 4) the likelihood that the plaintiff willing bridge the gap between the markets of the two marks, 5) actual confusion, 6) the defendants good faith in using his or her mark, 7) the quality of the defendants product, and 8) the sophistication of the customers. The regulate court ruled that there was no likelihood of confusion found on its rating of the 8 factors and thus denied the injunction. In add ition, the rule court found that Vuitton was unable to prove trademark dilution. LV appealed the injunction defensive measure to the bit Circuit Court of Appeals hoping to forcefulness the court into making a more broad judgment with regard design piracy. Unfortunately for Vuitton the court was not in the mood to make a statement in favor of defend designers.Rather than make its own notion on the case, based on the facts laid out before the court, the secondly Circuit kinda focused on a mistake by the zone court in its application of the standard of likelihood of confusion. The Second Circuit had previously held in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Burlington finish Factory that courts must use a sequential market place relation rather than a side by side simile when applying the standard of likelihood of confusion. The district court had used a side by side comparison that the Second Circuit deemed improper. In addition, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court that LV was not able to prove trademark dilution at the federal level.In give to prove trademark dilution the plaintiff must demonstrate the following its mark is famous, the defendant is making commercial use of the mark in commerce, the defendants use began after the mark became famous, the defendants use of the mark dilutes the quality of the mark by diminishing the capacity of the mark to identify and distinguish goods and services. Vuitton was able to prove the first three requirements but was unable to prove actual dilution. art object the court did agree that LV could not prove actual dilution (the federal requirement) they vacated the injunction at the state level due to the fact that it only requires LV to stage likelihood of dilution.The Second Circuit persistent to remand the similarity of the marks factor back to the district court for reconsideration. This meant that the district court would use the sequential market place comparison when examining the similarity of the ma rks and hold onto all other previous analysis of the likelihood of confusion factors. regular if the market place comparison had an effect on that one factor it was very unlikely to affect the outcome of the district courts ruling because the similarity of the marks was just one of eight weighted factors. The Second Circuit was fundamentally making a statement with its discussion of this case that it was not prepared to make a precedent setting ruling on the lack of protection for design piracy in the fashion industry.Even if they sought after to address the topic, strictly following the established law would have prevented them from coming up with a different result. The court may have felt that any comprehend or real injustice plaguing the fashion industry should be handled through the betrothal of written law rather than legislated from the bench. finally in May of 2008 the district court granted summary judgment to D&B on all claims. The court found that Louis Vuitton did not have tolerable evidence to present with regards to the trademark infringement or dilution claims. While the outcome of the case disappointed many people because D&B did copy the design, the court based its decision on the interpretation of the law.Another example of a trademark infringement case that could have implications is European Trademark v Google. Originally LV sued Google in France claiming trademark infringement from Googles AdWords program and the French court ruled in LVs favor. The court held that Google was committing trademark infringement and diluting the trademark when it decided to sell the LV name to other companies in order for their site to pops up upon a search. Unfortunately for LV the European Court of evaluator later ruled that Google in fact was not guilty of trademark infringement. There is a silver lining for LV. The court stated that advertisers using a trademark as a keyword can be held liable for infringement.The court specifically stated that s uch use of a trademark by the advertiser adversely affects the source-indicating break away of the trademark if the advertisement does not enable normally informed and reasonably enwrapped internet users to ascertain whether goods or services referred to by the ad originate from the proprietor of the trademark or, on the contrary, originate from a third party. Thus, a company like Louis Vuitton does have legal haunt if it finds misleading advertisements from searches of its brand. In addition, Google can be held accountable if it was aware of the improper use of the trademark and did not take the ad or content down.The ruling could have impacted a case like Louis Vuitton Malletier v Dooney & Bourke Inc. , but instead has foregone farther towards protecting companies in the somewhat unregulated internet market place. In closing, companies like LV will have to continue to be extremely aggressive through the use of lawsuits in order to protect their brand. Once more laws are appli ed to specific industry, such as the fashion industry, it will become easier to convey. The courts can only interpret the law, not create laws to safeguard these specific industries. The courts, as well as the citizens, have to trust that the legislative branch will step up and address these complex issues.