LES Foundation | LESI | Print Page | Contact Us | Sign In | Join
News & Press: Featured Articles

Louis Vuitton v. My Other Bag: No License Required

Tuesday, February 21, 2017   (0 Comments)
Share |
By Oliver Herzfeld

Using another’s trademark on your goods and services usually requires a license. However, there are exceptions to that general rule. For example, under certain circumstances, you are not required to obtain a license in connection with trademark uses for purposes of parody. The recent decision in the case of Louis Vuitton v. My Other Bag provides a good example of this legal principle.

The Case
My Other Bag sells everyday canvas tote bags with drawings of various luxury brand handbags on one side and “My other bag” in large print on the other side. Louis Vuitton took offense at My Other Bag’s products that imitate a number of Louis Vuitton bag styles and commenced a lawsuit claiming, among other things, trademark infringement and trademark dilution. The district court granted My Other Bag summary judgment on all of Louis Vuitton’s claims, holding that My Other Bag’s products are parodies and, as such, are not actionable sources of trademark infringement or dilution. In response, Louis Vuitton appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Legal Decision
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the trademark infringement and trademark dilution aspects of the summary judgment award.

With respect to Louis Vuitton’s claims of trademark infringement, the Second Circuit held that there was no real likelihood of confusion as to the source or origin of My Other Bag’s products. In arriving at its decision, the Second Circuit pointed to:

1. the obvious differences in My Other Bag’s mimicking of Louis Vuitton's trademark with a caricature drawing that replaced Louis Vuitton's famous interlocking “L” and “Vs” with interlocking “M,” “O” and “Bs”;
2. the lack of market proximity between Louis Vuitton's high-end luxury handbags and My Other Bag's ordinary canvas tote bags; and
3. ”minimal, unconvincing evidence of consumer confusion” between the two products.

With respect to Louis Vuitton’s claims of trademark dilution (i.e., a legal concept that prohibits unauthorized uses of famous marks to prevent associations that reduce their distinctiveness and uniqueness), the Second Circuit held that My Other Bag’s tote bags are parodic, bringing them within a “fair use” exclusion from liability for trademark dilution. The Second Circuit noted that “[a] parody must convey two simultaneous—and contradictory—messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.”  It went on to explain that “MOB's bags do precisely that. At the same time that they mimic LV's designs and handbags in a way that is recognizable, they do so as a drawing on a product that is such a conscious departure from LV's image of luxury—in combination with the slogan ‘My other bag’—as to convey that MOB's tote bags are not LV handbags. The fact that the joke on LV's luxury image is gentle, and possibly even complimentary to LV, does not preclude it from being a parody.”

The key here is that My Other Bag is not using Louis Vuitton's trademarks solely to ”promote” or “sell” goods, but instead uses the trademarks to parody Louis Vuitton’s high-end luxury image.  

The Lesson For Brand Owners
Brand owners should diligently protect their trademarks from infringement, dilution and other misuse (e.g., unfair competition, passing off, false advertising and cybersquatting) that may harm the owner's goodwill and business reputation. At the same time, brand owners may choose not to vigorously pursue all possible uses that might conflict, or to immediately commence a lawsuit against every possible infringer. Of course, a complete failure to enforce will lead to a weakening of an owner’s marks, loss of distinctiveness over time and potential forfeiture of certain available remedies.

Nonetheless, when potential infringements are identified, brand owners should investigate and evaluate all relevant factors such as type of use and likelihood of confusion, and consider defenses such as parody. Lawsuits are costly in terms of time, money and resources, so legal enforcement priorities should be established based on appropriate considerations. Doing so will help brand owners avoid losses similar to Louis Vuitton’s at the district court level (and again on appeal), have the unintended consequence of helping to publicize and promote My Other Bag’s products, and perhaps embolden others to create and sell products that parody Louis Vuitton’s high-end luxury image.



Oliver Herzfeld is the Chief Legal Officer at Beanstalk, a leading global brand extension agency and part of the Diversified Agency Services division of Omnicom Group.