Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., 156 F. Supp. 3d 425

Louis Vuitton (LV), owner of famous Toile Monogram and other registered trademarks, sued My Other Bag, Inc. (MOB) alleging trademark dilution (federal and New York), trademark infringement, and copyright infringement based on MOB’s canvas tote bags that caricature luxury handbags and include the legend “My Other Bag ...”.
MOB’s totes display simplified, cartoon-like images evoking LV patterns but substitute "MOB" or "My Other Bag" for the LV marks; MOB markets the totes as inexpensive, utilitarian, parody items sold for ~$30–$55.
MOB moved for summary judgment on all claims; LV cross-moved on dilution and copyright and sought evidentiary exclusions. The Court denied LV’s motions and granted MOB’s motion in full.
The Court applied the Lanham Act anti-dilution framework (including the statutory fair-use/parody exception), the Polaroid likelihood-of-confusion test for infringement, and the four-factor fair-use test for copyright.
The Court found MOB’s use qualifies as parody / fair use as a matter of law and, even absent the statutory parody safe harbor, MOB’s parody does not cause dilution by blurring or likelihood of consumer confusion; copyright claims also fail under fair-use principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MOB’s use dilutes LV’s famous marks under the Lanham Act and NY law	MOB’s imagery and marketing create an association that will blur LV’s marks and impair distinctiveness	MOB’s use is parody/fair use under §1125(c)(3); even if not, the parody is unlikely to impair distinctiveness	Held for MOB: statutory fair-use/parody applies; alternatively, no likelihood of dilution by blurring
Whether MOB’s totes infringe LV’s trademarks (likelihood of confusion)	The evoking imagery and use of LV-like patterns will confuse consumers as to source/sponsorship	The tote is an obvious parody: differences in presentation, pricing, distribution, and prominent “My Other Bag ...” branding negate confusion	Held for MOB: no triable issue of likelihood of confusion; Polaroid factors favor MOB
Whether MOB’s use constitutes copyright infringement	LV: MOB copied protectable design elements of LV prints	MOB: use is transformative parody and fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107; does not supplant LV’s market	Held for MOB: fair use applies; parody is transformative and market harm is unlikely
Admissibility/striking of MOB evidence and expert testimony	LV sought to exclude MOB expert and strike declarations as unreliable or improper	MOB argued testimony and declarations were admissible or irrelevant to legal ruling	Held: LV’s evidentiary motions denied as moot (Court did not rely on disputed submissions)

Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996) (dilution defined as impairment of mark’s ability to identify a single source)
Haute Diggity Dog, LLC v. Pierre, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) (parody may increase burden on plaintiff to show dilution; parody can weigh against dilution/infringement)
Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 588 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (dilution-by-blurring examples and analysis)
Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (parody context—strength of mark can help parody defense; Polaroid analysis adapted)
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (parody has transformative value for copyright fair-use analysis)
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (mere mental association is insufficient for dilution; must show impairment)
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961) (multi-factor likelihood-of-confusion test)