674 F. App'x 16
2d Cir.2016Background
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. (LV) sued My Other Bag, Inc. (MOB) alleging federal and state trademark infringement and dilution and copyright infringement based on MOB’s tote bags that depict drawings of luxury handbags (including LV’s) with the slogan “My other bag.”
- The district court granted summary judgment to MOB; LV appealed. The Second Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo.
- MOB’s product is a low-priced tote that depicts stylized drawings of designer handbags; one side bears the phrase “My other bag.”
- Key disputed legal questions: whether MOB’s use creates a likelihood of consumer confusion (trademark infringement), whether MOB’s use dilutes LV’s marks (including whether MOB’s use is a parody/fair use), and whether MOB’s copying is infringing or fair use under copyright law.
- The district court found MOB’s use parodic/transformative and not likely to cause confusion; the Second Circuit affirms for substantially the reasons in the district court opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trademark infringement — likelihood of confusion (Polaroid factors) | LV: district court ignored favorable evidence; confusion likely due to mimicry of LV designs | MOB: obvious differences, different market/proximity, little credible evidence of consumer confusion | Affirmed for MOB — differences, market separation, and minimal confusion weigh against LV |
| Trademark dilution — fair-use/parody and designation of source under §1125(c)(3) | LV: MOB’s use not parodic and functions as a designation of source, so no fair-use defense | MOB: bags convey a parody (mocking luxury image); slogan and business model show no source designation for LV | Affirmed for MOB — use is parodic (fair use); testimony and product labeling undermine designation-of-source claim; state-law dilution fails for similar reasons |
| Copyright infringement — fair use (transformative use) | LV: copying LV designs is infringement; fair-use factors do not favor MOB | MOB: use is transformative parody that conveys a new message; remaining fair-use factors favor MOB or are irrelevant | Affirmed for MOB — use is transformative parodic fair use |
Key Cases Cited
- Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (establishes the non‑exclusive Polaroid/Polarad likelihood‑of‑confusion factors)
- Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (discusses dilution and parody/fair‑use tensions)
- Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., Inc., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996) (parody requires dual message: recognizable original and message that it is not the original)
- Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ’g Grp., Inc., 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989) (parody principles in trademark context)
- Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (U.S. 1994) (transformative use and fair‑use analysis)
- L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (parody of trademarked images can be permissible even if the parody is complimentary)
- TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, 839 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2016) (recent Second Circuit fair‑use discussion)
- Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Ga.-Pac. Corp., 390 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Polaroid factor findings)