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.



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    fb39ca4, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:42am

    Wait...Louis Vuitton makes basketballs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 8:48am

    Live by the sword...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Adam Kalsey, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:19am

    So LV doesn't like free advertising?

    This is the sort of product placement other companies actually pay movie producers to include. If LV prefers that filmmakers use aome other company's products to be used to illustrate luxury, they might just find that the public stops associating them with luxury.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:21pm

      Re: So LV doesn't like free advertising?

      "If LV prefers that filmmakers use aome other company's products to be used to illustrate luxury, they might just find that the public stops associating them with luxury."

      Yes, and THAT is what will "dilute" their brand--not a few frames in a car commercial, or three seconds of some silly sequel.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      illuminaut, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 1:21pm

      Re: So LV doesn't like free advertising?

      The only way this makes any sense is if they make more money with these lawsuits than by selling stuff, which would frankly be shocking.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PlagueSD (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:21am

    And this folks...is why we have those blurry little boxes all over the place on "reality" TV shows. I'd think the companies would actually LIKE the free advertising. Bluring out the brand names that are basically backgrounds or props in a movie/TV show has to be one of the dumbest things ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jeremy2020 (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:37am

    This is why there needs to be laws that punish frivolous suits.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 9:42am

    when it suits, it suits. when it doesn't, sue!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Anonymoose Custard (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:02am

    ... as content producers and distributors, they rely on the very freedoms and fair use exceptions that they are constantly seeking to curtail.


    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:02am

    Maybe we'll get lucky ...

    ... and *all* references to Louis Vitton (including, I suppose, these) will disappear from the online world entirely. Let's make sure that they get eliminated from all social networking sites as well ('You wouldn't believe the great [redacted] handbag I bought. You can buy it at [redacted].'). Screen all the online sales outlets (legit and otherwise) and let's make sure the valuable brand Louis Vitton itself doesn't get tainted; we can do this by changing louisvitton.com to 127.0.0.1 in the global dns structure.
    Let us rejoice in watching the bullies making themselves extinct. Popcorn, anyone?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PlagueSD (profile), Apr 12th, 2012 @ 10:24am

      Re: Maybe we'll get lucky ...

      That's a great idea. I fully support deleting all references on the internet for [redacted]. While we're at it, can we add [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] to the list also?

      Also, [redacted] makes the best popcorn. You can go to [redacted] as they have the best price for popcorn.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 12:15pm

        Re: Re: Maybe we'll get lucky ...

        I think maybe the opposite needs to happen actually. I'm thinking of twitter feeds where anonymous people post mock ads with mock LV items a la PhotoShop en masse. Streisand it and the grab some popcorn as you watch their heads explode.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DogBreath, Apr 12th, 2012 @ 1:41pm

    It's about time for Iowa to tax the piss out of Louis Vuitton

    Iowa Department of Revenue shreds the Commerce Clause

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Apr 13th, 2012 @ 12:43am

    They should put a scene in their next movie where one character asks another if that's a Louis Vuitton bag and the character responds "Are you kidding? I wouldn't be caught dead with anything by Louis Vuitton!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This