Louis Vuitton Malletier V Dooney & Bourke Inc Essay Example

by elegance, sophistication, and timelessness.

In 2002, famed designer Marc Jacobs teamed up with Japanese artist Takashi Murakami to give a fresh twist to the iconic Louis Vuitton ''toile monogram.'' The renewed version, known as Monogram Multicolore, combined floral patterns and the intertwined LV logo. It came in an array of 33 colors and was featured on handbags set against either black or white backdrops. These bags made their debut on Paris fashion runways in October 2002 and by March 2003 were being retailed at upscale stores for prices up to $3,950. Before this, Louis Vuitton had secured patents for its unique LV monogram design pattern and exclusive shapes from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In a separate partnership in July 2003, D joined forces with Teen Vogue to create a new collection of teen-friendly handbags named "It Bag" collection. These bags showcased entwined "DB" initials printed in contrasting colors on various colored backgrounds including classic black and white. Despite some resemblance between D's bag series and Louis Vuitton's popular model, D's products were notably more budget-friendly.

Louis Vuitton's staunch stand against knockoff items resulted in an anticipated legal conflict. The corporation rapidly recognized the "It Bag" as a counterfeit of their authentic design. Upon discussing the chances of initiating legal action against Dooney and Bourke with their attorneys, they were enlightened about various tactical options at hand. In American fashion commerce, designers and producers can contemplate four potential protective measures: Copyright safeguarding, Patent safeguarding, Trade Dress safeguarding, and Trademark safeguarding.

Copyright safeguards encompass a range of creative productions including literary works, musical compositions, theatrical pieces, dance sequences, images,

and architectural designs. In the context of fashion design, only graphic creations involving two or three dimensions fall under copyright law. Conversely, patent protections are designed to secure novel and beneficial inventions such as processes, machinery, products or improvements on existing ones. The fashion industry does not generally involve these types of inventions; instead there are distinct measures in place for protecting unique and aesthetically pleasing designs of manufactured goods.

The Lanham Act safeguards trade dress, encompassing the design, look and total visual aesthetic of a product along with its packaging. The protection also covers colors but only if they have attained a secondary significance as per the U.S. Supreme Court.

Over time, it's crucial for the customer to establish a connection between a product's color and design. In 2004, option 4—Trademark protection was elected by the legal team. They claimed trademark violation, brand dilution, false designation, and unfair competition. Trademark infringement happens when a seller or maker incorporates a word, symbol or slogan in their merchandise. For instance, employing the term "Apple" concerning computers or software could lead to consumer confusion.

Nike holds the trademark for their slogan "Just Do It," linked to their brand, just as McDonald's has the rights over its golden arches symbol. This protection might extend to other elements such as color or packaging too. In cases of trademark dilution, it is necessary that the distinct nature of a mark be blurred or tarnished, even if there isn't necessarily a likelihood of confusion. Actions causing potential confusion, error, or deception among consumers are termed as unfair competition and false designation.

Under Section 43(a) of the Lanham

Act, it is stated that anyone can be subjected to civil liability if they misuse any word, symbol, device or other combinations thereof. This also includes false designations of origin and misleading descriptions or representations with respect to commercial goods or services likely leading to confusion about their affiliation, connection, association, origin, sponsorship or approval. Additionally, making inaccurate claims regarding the characteristics qualities or geographic origin of goods and services while advertising may yield legal ramifications as well. The Lanham Act provides defense against unauthorized use and duplication for both registered and unregistered trademarks in commerce. Once a trademark acquires a fundamental uniqueness or secondary meaning status it becomes eligible for protection under the Lanham Act and can be reviewed for potential confusion in cases involving trademark infringement.

Laws mandate a lucid comprehension of the situation and a distinct component that can confirm the breach of the law. This suggests that orderly proof is fundamental to corroborate the assertion and amplify its validation. Without such evidence, one might deem the case as null, given there's no viable verification to back up the assertion. Additionally, laws call for an all-inclusive representation of the case, encompassing particulars of the infringement in temporal sequence, to facilitate legal rationalizations and relevant legislation.

Diverse explanations exist about how law violations occur. At times, a certain action considered unlawful may not necessarily be a breach of the law, or the violation itself might not be viewed as criminal. This circumstance can emerge when the alleged crime falls outside the scope of legal regulation or when there is no current legislation related to that particular activity. As such, it becomes

necessary to determine if the activity is indeed a crime or merely a legal infraction. Such situations often happen when the defendant is unaware they have infringed any laws. Furthermore, unknowingness of the law could also pertain to the complainant presenting evidence against the supposed offender for what they perceive as a "crime."

Having a deep understanding of the applicable laws, regulatory standards, and legal prerequisites necessary for identifying a legal breach prepares us to delve into the case progression. As previously mentioned, in April 2004 Vuitton initiated legal proceedings against D;B at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The allegations leveled against D;B included trademark infringement, unjust competition practices, false designation and trademark dilution. In an attempt to halt sales of the "it bag" until a resolution could be reached in court, Vuitton proposed a preliminary injunction. However, this request was declined by the District court which decided in favor of D;B. To ascertain trademark infringement, the court employed Section 43's dual-criterion test under the Lanham Act.

The test for trademark protection involves determining whether the unregistered trademark is distinctive or has achieved secondary meaning. In this case, the district court found that Vuitton's design was distinctive and had gained secondary meaning in the marketplace. The second part of the test involves deciding whether the defendant's use of the mark will cause consumer confusion about the origin or sponsorship of their goods. The court examined eight factors to determine likelihood of confusion: the strength and similarity of the marks, proximity of the products, likelihood of bridging market gaps, instances of actual confusion, defendant's good faith, quality

of defendant's product, and customer sophistication. Based on its evaluation of these factors, the district court concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion and denied the injunction. The court also ruled that Vuitton failed to prove trademark dilution. Vuitton appealed the injunction denial to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of a broader judgment on "design piracy," but ultimately, the court did not favor protecting designers in this case.

Instead of making a ruling on the issue, the Second Circuit concentrated on an error made by the district court when implementing the standard of likelihood of confusion. In a previous case, Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory, it was decided by the Second Circuit that comparing markets in sequence is more preferable than comparing them side by side for this standard. The district court made a mistake in using a side by side comparison approach which was viewed as unsuitable by the Second Circuit. Furthermore, the Second Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that LV failed to show evidence of federal trademark dilution.

In order to claim trademark dilution, the claimant needs to substantiate several factors. The first is that their mark has achieved fame. The second step involves proving that the accused party is utilizing this mark for commercial gain. Thirdly, evidence must be presented showing that the defendant began using the mark after it had gained recognition and fame. Finally, they need to prove that such use by the defendant lessens its ability to differentiate and recognize goods and services, thereby reducing its quality. Vuitton was able to fulfill these initial three conditions but could not

provide proof of actual dilution occurrence. Despite agreeing on LV's inability to establish actual dilution under federal law, the court overruled the injunction at state level as LV was only required to show a potential risk of dilution.

The Second Circuit has ruled to return the matter of mark similarity to the district court for further review. This action implies that the district court will employ a step-by-step marketplace comparison in establishing the resemblance between marks, while maintaining all prior evaluations related to the probability of confusion factors. Regardless if this marketplace comparison influences this factor, it’s highly improbable that it would alter the final decision of the district court given that there are seven other significant factors taken into account. In essence, by managing this case in such manner, The Second Circuit is signifying its reluctance to set a legal precedent concerning inadequate protection against "design piracy" within the fashion industry.

Regardless of their interest in discussing the matter, stringent compliance with the existing law barred them from arriving at an alternative resolution. The court probably presumed that any real or perceived unfairness in the fashion sector should be resolved through passing a written law rather than being determined by the judiciary. Ultimately, in May 2008, D&B was granted summary judgment by the district court on all allegations. The court concluded that Louis Vuitton did not have ample proof to support their trademark infringement or dilution allegations. Despite many being dissatisfied with this result given D&B's copying of the design, the court defended its verdict based on its reading and understanding of legal statutes.

The lawsuit between the European Trademark and

Google is a trademark violation case with potential far-reaching effects. Initially, Louis Vuitton (LV) lodged a lawsuit against Google in France, accusing them of violating their trademark through the AdWords program. The French judiciary sided with LV, stating that Google's act of selling the LV name to other businesses constituted both trademark violation and dilution. However, this ruling was later reversed by the European Court of Justice, which absolved Google of any infringement charges. Despite this reversal, it wasn't all negative for LV as the court affirmed that advertisers who employ a trademark as a keyword can still be held accountable for infringement.

The judiciary argued that an advertisement becomes damaging to the trademark's function if it fails to let online users discern whether the discussed goods or services originate from the trademark holder or another entity. This means firms such as Louis Vuitton are legally entitled to take action if they encounter misleading advertisements related to their brand in search results. Moreover, Google may be held accountable if it knew about the illicit use of a trademark but did not act promptly by eliminating the ad or content.

The ruling could have affected a case like Louis Vuitton Malletier v Dooney & Bourke Inc., but instead it has gone further in protecting companies in the relatively unregulated internet marketplace. In conclusion, companies like LV will need to remain highly aggressive through the use of lawsuits to safeguard their brand. Once more laws are applied to specific industries, such as fashion, it will become easier to communicate. The courts can only interpret the law; they cannot create laws to protect these particular industries.

Both the courts and citizens must trust that the legislative branch will step up and address these complex issues.