Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
868 F. Supp. 2d 172
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Louis Vuitton sues Warner Bros. over use of a knock-off Diophy bag in The Hangover: Part II, alleging false designation of origin, unfair competition, and dilution.
- The Diophy bag bears a Knock-Off Monogram design that resembles Louis Vuitton’s Toile Monogram and is allegedly distributed nationwide.
- In an early airport scene, a bag that appears to be Louis Vuitton is actually the Diophy knock-off; a character acknowledges the bag as Louis Vuitton, creating alleged confusion.
- Louis Vuitton sent a cease-and-desist; Warner Bros. released the film on DVD/Blu-Ray despite objections.
- Louis Vuitton contends the film marketing exacerbates confusion and damages the LVM Marks’ distinctiveness.
- Warner Bros. moves to dismiss all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing First Amendment protection under Rogers v. Grimaldi.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers protection bars Lanham Act claim | Louis Vuitton argues the Diophy use is not protected by Rogers because it causes confusion about sponsorship/endorsement. | Warner Bros. contends the use is artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading, thus protected. | Dismissal upheld; Rogers protection applies. |
| Whether the Lanham Act claim is sufficiently plausible | Louis Vuitton argues likelihood of confusion from the Diophy bag and implied sponsorship. | Warner Bros. asserts no plausible confusion given brief, noncommercial use and artistic context. | Lanham Act claim dismissed as not plausible. |
| Whether explicit confusion prong is satisfied | Louis Vuitton contends the Diophy bag could mislead as Louis Vuitton and imply endorsement. | Warner Bros. argues no explicit misrepresentation of source/content of the work itself and minimal confusion. | Not satisfied; no explicit misleading as to source or sponsorship. |
| Whether state-law anti-dilution and unfair-competition claims survive | Louis Vuitton relies on same conduct as Lanham Act claim. | First Amendment analysis governs, precluding state claims premised on the same conduct. | State-law claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir.1989) (artistic works protected when relevant and not explicitly misleading)
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1961) (Polaroid factors for likelihood of confusion)
- Twin Peaks Prods., Inc. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir.1993) (explicitly misleading standard in Rogers framework)
- Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ’g Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir.1989) (confusion standards in expressive contexts)
- Gottlieb Dev. LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 590 F. Supp. 2d 625 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (no likelihood of confusion where mark appears in background)
- Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200 (2d Cir.1979) (confusion as to sponsorship/endorsement extends beyond source confusion)
- Lang v. Retirement Living Pub. Co., Inc., 949 F.2d 576 (2d Cir.1991) (commercial-use requirement and proximity to purchasing decisions)
- Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (S. Ct.2003) (limits on misappropriation of others’ goodwill; focus on source)
- 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir.2005) (commercial-use requirement and station of trademark use in online context)