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:
And that's not all. It used the victory over Hyundai to sue Warner Bros. because an LV bag appears briefly in the movie (thankfully, they lost that one). Oh, and then there was the time LV's lawyers actually threatened UPenn's law school for holding a trademark symposium with the following poster:
And that brings us to the latest case, spotted via The Trademark Blog, in which Louis Vuitton sued a small company called "My Other Bag" which made (you guessed it!) bags that play off the "my other car..." joke:
Thankfully, while Louis Vuitton's lawyers didn't get the joke, Judge Jesse Furman, totally got the joke, and thought that perhaps Louis Vuitton's lawyers might want to loosen up a bit and enjoy the joke as well:
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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 11:12am

    Louis who..

    Maybe he just wishes to be forgotten. It's no skin off my back if he doesn't want recognition. Just let the guy be content at being an invisible man. Out of site & mind, ignored by all.

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

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 11:46am

      Re: Louis who..

      Maybe you've never heard of bags by Louis Who? because their primary business is trademark bullying, and in support of that, they happen to make some not very well known bags.

      Voltage pictures?

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

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 12 Jan 2016 @ 11:33am

    I wonder how much this victory cost "My Other Bag."

    If you can use the courts to bankrupt someone even if they win... "The medium is the message."

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 12:53pm

    Legal humor

    ...Judge Jesse Furman, totally got the joke, and thought that perhaps Louis Vuitton's lawyers might want to loosen up a bit and enjoy the joke as well...

    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???)

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 1:52pm

    My other lawyer is an ambulance chaser...

    Seen on a LV exec's car.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 2:22pm

    Can someone explain WHY anyone would buy an LV bag?

    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.

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

    • identicon
      Andrew D. Todd, 13 Jan 2016 @ 5:25am

      So Hire An American Craftsman (to: Anonymous Coward, #7)

      Louis Viutton's trademark is just a piece of machine-woven fabric in the end. And it's not cheap, unless you're talking about the kind you buy from a street peddler. For the of money the real article costs, you could get an American craftsman to make you a nice leather bag. The man who repairs my boots has a purely local business in bags, belts, etc. Of course, if you find someone who works in the Mexico-Texas tradition of leather-craft, you can get them to make you something, working from your own drawings or photographs, which is entirely your own. Mexican-Texan leather-carving is an authentic folk style, with hundreds of years of tradition behind it. You aren't paying for marketing and corporate overhead, you are paying for, say, ten or twenty hours of the time of an artist with the swivel-knife, the modeling tool, and the mallet and the bevel and floral stamps. If you are going to spend a couple of thousand dollars on a bag, you should get something for it.

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

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 12 Jan 2016 @ 4:38pm

    How long until the inevitable appeal?

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Whatever, 12 Jan 2016 @ 4:57pm

    smh at what Techdirt has become

    It is insanely sad and distressing that companies providing high quality goods should now have to worry about judges telling them off simply for enforcing trademarks. This judge has made himself jury and executioner, and ridiculed a corporation for simply exercising their rights. Naturally this means Techdirt supports such a decision. I would post this under my login but since PaulT has taken to logging out to stinky troll me again, I refuse to play according to his uneven playing field.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2016 @ 9:22pm

      Re: smh at what Techdirt has become

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2016 @ 5:37am

      Re: smh at what Techdirt has become

      You are seriously one screwed up fuck. You do know that, right?

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

    • icon
      DannyB (profile), 13 Jan 2016 @ 9:50am

      Re: smh at what Techdirt has become

      A company that goes after obvious parody is not merely enforcing trademarks.

      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.

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 14 Jan 2016 @ 12:49am

        Re: Re: smh at what Techdirt has become

        Criticize? Parody? Make fun of?!

        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

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

    • identicon
      Bees!, 13 Jan 2016 @ 4:08pm

      Re: smh at what Techdirt has become

      So, this is what passes for trolling nowadays?

      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
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.