Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Feb. 13, 2017, the eve of Valentine's Day, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals extended no love to Louis Vuitton, effectively asserting that it would not rehear the infringement suit against My Other Bag, Inc., denying the en banc request in a brief order. This follows the Second Circuit's affirmation of summary judgment in favor of My Other Bag in December 2016, holding that its brand-spoofing canvas totes didn't amount to trademark or copyright infringement or dilution of Louis Vuitton's intellectual property rights and were properly protected by the parody defense. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v My Other Bag Inc., No 16-241-cv (2d Cir, Dec. 22, 2016).
The line of reusable bags bear the “My Other Bag” moniker on one side with a printed representation of a luxury brand bag on the other — admittedly “parodying the designer bags we love, but practical enough for everyday life.” The My Other Bag tagline is a clear play on the “My other car is a …” bumper sticker gag, as noted by the district court, which juxtaposes the consumer's cheap product with the expensive designer product. The joke, however, was lost on Louis Vuitton, which has historically been vigilant about pursuing potential infringers.
While Louis Vuitton bags retail for hundreds or thousands of dollars each, the My Other Bag totes are sold for $30-55 and are marketed to carry the items too undesirable for a luxury bag — such as gym gear or beach towels. The Second Circuit determined that the joke itself, namely, the implication that the “other bag” is the luxury designer bag and not the tote that the consumer is using to schlep groceries and laundry, paired with the purposefully caricature-like renderings on the totes, were sufficient to establish distance between My Other Bag's goods and those of Louis Vuitton. The court ruled that the “obvious attempt at humor” was likely “only to reinforce and enhance the distinctiveness and notoriety of the famous brand” rather than to cause confusion or dilution in the marketplace.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
As businesses across various industries increasingly adopt blockchain, it will become a critical source of discoverable electronically stored information. The potential benefits of blockchain for e-discovery and data preservation are substantial, making it an area of growing interest and importance.