Can’t win for chewing

Originally posted 2006-11-30 01:37:42. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Louis Vuitton Malletier loses one on parody grounds. I guess you had to be there — sounds like this is on the wrong side of parody to me. And how about trademark dilution, especially under the corporate-friendly new and improved dilution statute? Here’s a link to clarify the Chewy Vuitton concept. Enjoy it while you can — I predict a reversal on appeal.

email

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

Subscribe

If you don't get enough email (who does?), I can send you LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog posts by email! Free!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » Ruff times for Vuitton - November 27, 2007

    [...] IP Law Chat reports that LVMH has lost its appeal (decision here) of the “Chewy Vuitton” decision. Here’s an interesting sidelight, and one that may have reverberations beyond this case: [T]he strength and distinctiveness of the LOUIS VUITTON mark worked against Louis Vuitton in the context of its dilution by blurring claim, making it more likely that a parody (at least an obvious one) will not impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark. [...]

Leave a Reply