Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. LY USA Inc., 472 F. App'x 19

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. (LV) sued LY USA Inc. and related defendants for trademark infringement and counterfeiting in the Southern District of New York.
District court granted LV summary judgment on infringement and counterfeiting and awarded $3.5 million in statutory damages, fees, and costs.
The district court also addressed four related issues, with two other decisions issued in separate opinions.
Second Circuit reviews the district court’s summary-judgment ruling de novo, applying Polaroid eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion.
The court held that likelihood of confusion, including post-sale confusion, supported infringement, and that the counterfeiting finding was properly based on evidence including testimony and counterfeit-evidence records.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Infringement and counterfeiting	LV contends likelihood of confusion and counterfeit use by defendants.	Defendants argue lack of substantial similarity and weak evidence of counterfeiting.	Infringement and counterfeiting affirmed; likelihood of confusion supported by Polaroid factors and post-sale confusion.
Statutory damages amount	LV seeks maximum statutory damages given willful infringement and scale of counterfeiting.	Defendants challenge the district court’s calculation and use of evidence to justify damages.	District court’s damages award affirmed; abuse of discretion not shown in setting amount within statutory range.
Motion to adjourn oral argument for new evidence	LV submitted new evidence of counterfeiting; defendants sought stay for examination.	Defendants claim need for continuance to review new evidence.	Denial of adjournment affirmed; new evidence deemed cumulative and not prejudicial.

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 426 F.3d 532 (2d Cir. 2005) (similarity assessment; consumer perception across products matters)
Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (likelihood of confusion framework)
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (eight-factor test for likelihood of confusion)
Hermès Int'l v. Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc., 219 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2000) (post-sale confusion actionable; source confusion)
Lois Sportswear, U.S.A., Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co., 799 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1986) (post-sale confusion actionable)
Island Software & Co. Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary judgment; credibility of witness evidence)
Rolls-Royce PLC v. Rolls-Royce USA, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 2d 150 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (broad discretion in statutory-damages awards)
Am. Express Co. v. Goetz, 515 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2008) (de novo review standard for summary judgments in IP cases)