Warner Bros dropkicks Louis Vuitton lawsuit over the Hangover: Part II

  Louis Vuitton has been busy working on all kinds of kung-fu practice law by the courts recently.

First, he unleashed a wave-like Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks to the legal to the dome, hundreds of counterfeiters in the form of hundreds of injunctions, and even a $ 3,000,000 verdict.

In March, a federal court in New York Hyundai liability for the Louis Vuitton brand dilution, based on a 32nd TV spot called The luxury market, the "Eating caviar in a police patrol car" shown the luxury. "; Large yachts parked next to the modest houses blue collar lobsters eat at lunch, played a scene of four seconds of a basketball game downtown on a beautiful marble court with a hoop of gold, and a ten-second scene of [a Hyundai ] Sonata ride a road with chandeliers and red carpets of crosswalks fed. "The announcement of luxury wanted" to redefine luxury in communicating to consumers that offered the Sonata "luxury for all." But in the "four-second scene "of a basketball game downtown, he was - one second - a basketball with the famous Louis Vuitton" Monogram Canvas "(see left) Based on this second film, Louis Vuitton has responsibility for Trademark Dilution established..

Finally, after a victory over Louis Vuitton Hyundai has tried on his victory in the ongoing dispute with Warner Bros., the use of knock-off benefit of Louis Vuitton luggage, which appeared in a clip 25 seconds in The Hangover: Part II

But Warner Bros., like Bruce Lee dies, no kicks to the dome rotunda so easily.

Trademark Dilution

Before comparing the styles of Louis Vuitton legal battle, Hyundai, and Warner Bros., Let us first consider one of the most interesting areas of the law in question - the brand dilution.

Trademark dilution is a concept in the world of trademark law, the owner of a famous brand standing ban others from using the mark would in a way that gives it its uniqueness or reduce value. The blurring or tarnishment: A plaintiff in a case of dilution, by the authoritative evidence of two things. Blurring occurs when the mark infringes a mark of distinctiveness of the famous. Start on the other hand, occurs when the brand into disrepute is a famous brand. (As for our legislators ['lobbyists], brands have a good reputation too.)

Many researchers agree that the law favors the dilution of the company brand is very questionable. Unlike traditional law trademark infringement, not really dilution law to protect consumers, because the applicant does not need to prove a likelihood of confusion or actual economic harm (compared to the traditional infringement cases brand, "confusion" conditio sine qua non). In addition, the law prevents Trademark Dilution probably beneficial uses for the company trademarks of the companies that do not compete with each other. But despite the apparent consensus against the University Law Trademark Dilution, Louis Vuitton has been selected as the legal battle (just before the deadly "Crouching Tiger, Hidden attorney" form).

Louis Vuitton v. Hyundai

In his case, dilution against Hyundai - Click here to see the commercial break - Louis Vuitton, the court is convinced that he and the six "non-exclusive factors that go to the dilution by blurring" that: (i) the degree of similarity between the defendant and the famous mark, (ii) the distinctiveness of the famous mark, (iii) if the owner of the famous trademark "intervention in much exclusive use of the mark", (iv) the degree of recognition of the famous mark, (v), if the defendant is to create an association with the famous brand, and (vi) the true relationship between the defendant and the mark of the famous mark. determined

Unfortunately, the court lost sight of the forest for the trees. Opinion of the court completely failed to explain how Hyundai Louis Vuitton basketball "undermines the uniqueness" of the brand Louis Vuitton - which is the crux of the analysis is on six factors.

I for one can not just look. Of course, the sale of Hyundai and wink at the Louis Vuitton logo was visible (and intentionally). But without doubt, that the use of recognizable confirmed that the distinctive character and improved and the value of the brand Louis Vuitton.

In any case, the victory of Louis Vuitton for summary judgment on liability only Hyundai brand dilution was limited, which means that Louis Vuitton has yet to fight for its claim for infringement of the trademark. Also in terms of dilution of the brand Louis Vuitton has yet to prove that the claim for damages (assuming the case goes to court). But this victory was enough for the house that Louis's next round of legal Kung Fu is reminiscent of Warner Bros. Director built

Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros.

A shift back to traditional trademark infringement, the trial of Louis Vuitton to Warner Bros., as the suit against Hyundai, also a 32nd Clip-centered, but this time from the movie, The Hangover: Part II Yet the allegedly infringing content appeared for a few seconds.

In the movie "Airport Scene," one of the characters in the film Dumber (it really is only a matter of degree in movies), with the name Alan, wearing what for a Louis Vuitton 'Keepall his "bag, while his . Porter pushing another Louis Vuitton luggage moved behind him, as a friend Alan study the case in a later scene, Alan responds with the words: ". Respect is ... it is a Lewis [sic] Vuitton "And we all laugh at Alan.

It turns out, Alan realized the bag in the movie was a fake. And Louis Vuitton fakes hate. Legal claims of Louis Vuitton - which appears for three seconds in the movie - a real Louis Vuitton was a product consumers would think that Alan knockoff door to be confused.

As in the case against Hyundai, has Louis Vuitton evidence to the court of "Internet references and representative excerpts from blogs" presented - what dishes a well-deserved break from Twitter examination of the evidence, apparently - demonstrating that consumers mistakenly believed that the bag a real knockoff Louis Vuitton bag was. Unlike Hyundai, but the main demand from Louis Vuitton to Warner Bros. was not whether people wrongly connect the product (in this case the film) with Louis Vuitton, but if Warner Bros. used the fake bag is unacceptable.

Warner Bros. has advised the court that because the First Amendment, the Lanham Act does not apply to "art" as long as the defendant is to use the trademark "artistic relevance" to the job and is not "intentionally misleading" about the origin or content of the work. Louis Vuitton has argued that the parties need to commit to the discovery before the court could make these decisions, but not the court had agreed. The court found the allegations of the Louis Vuitton brand dilution were also prohibited by the First Amendment defense and dismissed the complaint. In addition, to say, Warner Bros., the court's decision could also encourage every manufacturing company, long divided by its arch-conservative jurists in obtaining a license for each recognized brand that appears in one of his pictures or TV intimidated emissions (when the law need not be real or seemed).

Why not win the argument on First Amendment Hyundai could even based on?

The First Amendment protects freedom of commercial speech protection Noncommercial more. Hyundai one second of film appeared in an advertisement that is not simply less commercial, as she tries "to redefine the concept of luxury." Warner Bros. "three seconds of video, the other appeared in a film that (at least for purposes of the First Amendment right) is considered" not commercial ", although it replace a sequel, which recycles substantially all of the intrigue of the original film, Just a baby with a monkey and Las Vegas to Bangkok.

Does it make sense that art should be protected in a movie more than art in a commercial environment? Can we just as much artistic / comedic value on the ads? If you ask me, what has managed to turn a man past middle age in the Jewish Bronx of the most interesting people in the world is an artist of the first order!