Very true tink! Let us know where you write too and we should all send a letter about this if we have pups and like the toys. It's just stupid of LVMH. They dont even use the same symbols as LV.
Dogs can't carry fakes either
- Thread starter MiuLouisChoo
- Start date
Very true tink! Let us know where you write too and we should all send a letter about this if we have pups and like the toys. It's just stupid of LVMH. They dont even use the same symbols as LV.
I did send off an e-mail, I sent it through the website.
Please pass this on to your corporate legal department and customer relations department.
Dear sirs,
As a Vuitton fan and VIC customer, I read with disgust about your on going lawsuit against Haute Diggity Dog.
This harmless type of parody is doing no harm to the Vuitton name or brand. In fact, it adds to it's iconic status. Let's be honest and realistic, no one is ever going to confuse authentic Vuitton with these dog toys. The case was already thrown out once, and copy right laws are pretty clear on parodys. Vuittons appeal and pursuit of this case disturbs me. It seems very petty to me.
What a waste of time, money and resources. I am seriously considering sending them a check to help with their legal fund, rather than making my next purchase.
I know my opinion probably doesn't mean much to a large corporation such as LVMH, but felt so strongly I had to write and express it anyway.
Sincerely,
Mary H
CA
Please pass this on to your corporate legal department and customer relations department.
Dear sirs,
As a Vuitton fan and VIC customer, I read with disgust about your on going lawsuit against Haute Diggity Dog.
This harmless type of parody is doing no harm to the Vuitton name or brand. In fact, it adds to it's iconic status. Let's be honest and realistic, no one is ever going to confuse authentic Vuitton with these dog toys. The case was already thrown out once, and copy right laws are pretty clear on parodys. Vuittons appeal and pursuit of this case disturbs me. It seems very petty to me.
What a waste of time, money and resources. I am seriously considering sending them a check to help with their legal fund, rather than making my next purchase.
I know my opinion probably doesn't mean much to a large corporation such as LVMH, but felt so strongly I had to write and express it anyway.
Sincerely,
Mary H
CA
[FONT="]who care about dog toys that resemble LV or other high-end designers. they should worry about all the fakes bags out there, I read a newspaper article stating its a multi million-dollar industry, those fake bags. I can't believe how much press the little dog toys got. I own a couple for my dogs and think it's so cute. I think the high-end designers really need to re-evaluate their priorities and start paying closer attention to all the fake bags.[/FONT]
Any press is good press for the dog toys, just hate their having to shell so much out for legal battles that are stupid. Well said on your letter tink and I am also going to send one. Thanks for posting it!
Good for you! I, however, don't support illegal items. This includes knock-offs, replicas and counterfeits. If it's similar to the original designer - it's illegal. And this small business is shockingly embarassing to Louis Vuitton and many, many other designers. And I support they all sue for everything they can get. It's in everyone's best interest for Louis Vuitton to take action because it may be considered trafficking and it's illegal.
Counterfeit in the US is legally defined as anything that can be confused as a brand trademark in an attempt to deceive. That includes point of purchase for the buyer, and the item actual being seen in public. If it can be confused as LV, then it is illegal. These dog toys are not under that definition as they don't even mention LV, or use their symbols and are clearly just dog chewy toys. This has already been thrown out of US courts once.
Good for you. I agree. I think LVMH's American executives need to impress upon their superiors a better understanding of US law. In the end, I imagine the suit will be thrown out again by the appellate court, and LVMH will have unwittingly provided this doggie toy company with tons of free publicity.
My chihuahuas had (before they ripped it up!! LOL) the T&Co one as well as the Chewy Vuitton...other posters are right when they say the logos, etc are different...I just kinda felt that it was all in good fun...
.
This is another post on the counterfeit chic site that explains a little more and I thought was funny. My favorite is the last line:
"But if an allegedly infringing copy makes the judge laugh, things don't look good for the trademark owner."
Look at those cute doggy bags! Like those could ever be confused for the real thing!
I think it's great that my doggies can tote a version of what I have, and it's okay for them to destroy it. lol
November 11, 2006
Further Ruminations
During the wonderful year I spent in Little Rock, Arkansas, as a law clerk to The Honorable Morris Sheppard Arnold, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, I learned a great deal about jurisprudence. I also added a number of colorful new expressions to my vocabulary, including one of my favorites, "I [just about/haven't quite] chewed all the sugar out of that gum." In other words, "I [have/have not] finished with that subject."
Judging by your emails, I haven't quite chewed all of the sugar out of the Chewy Vuiton [sic] case, a.k.a. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC. In a decision handed down last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (a.k.a. the rocket docket) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, a manufacturer of products for pampered pooches. The line of dog beds and toys includes a number of humorous versions of luxury brands, including Furrari, Jimmy Chew, Sniffany & Co., Chewel #5...and, of course, the Chewy Vuiton "handbag" toys and beds at issue in the case. (They're even labeled "parody items" -- probably a lawyer's idea.)
The court, in a "punny" opinion tailor-made for law school casebooks, analyzed claims of trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, and copyright, concluding in each instance that either Haute Diggity Dog had engaged in legimate parody or Louis Vuitton had failed to make its case. The most interesting part of the opinion, legally speaking, is that it is the first case to address the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, which became law on October 6, 2006.
In trademark law, the basic standard for infringement is "likelihood of consumer confusion." Just like famous people, however, famous trademarks are surrounded by additional security. If a trademark is famous, e.g. Louis Vuitton, the trademark holder need not prove a likelihood of confusion, but only (under the new act) a likelihood of dilution. This dilution may take the form of making the famous mark less distinctive because there are so many other similar marks out there (dilution by blurring) or harming the reputation of the famous mark by associating it with certain other goods (dilution by tarnishment).
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act in some ways makes life easier for the owners of famous marks, who now need only prove likelihood of dilution rather than actual dilution, but it also clarifies a number of "fair use" exceptions to infringement. Among these fair uses is parody, which essentially takes legal notice of our collective sense of humor.
Although Louis Vuitton brought its action against Haute Diggity Dog well before the new law took effect, it requested an injunction against sales of Chewy Vuiton merchandise. Since an injunction by definition affects future rather than past action, the court concluded that the new act should apply -- and thus based its analysis of trademark dilution (including the parody defense) on new rather than old law.
Although a parody defense can be enough to drive a trademark owner barking mad (OK, tried to resist; couldn't), it is based on the fact that our cultural referents are often commodified. We no longer sit and tell stories around the fire; we sit around watching programs and ads on television (which Marshal McLuhan reportedly called "the campfire of the global village"). If Louis Vuitton has become cultural shorthand for high-end luxury goods, it's no wonder that the owners of cultivated canines are amused by the recursive reference.
Does that mean that LV can't protect its trademarks against blatant copying or individuals who are simply trying to trade on the famous name? Surely not. But if an allegedly infringing copy makes the judge laugh, things don't look good for the trademark owner.
"But if an allegedly infringing copy makes the judge laugh, things don't look good for the trademark owner."
Look at those cute doggy bags! Like those could ever be confused for the real thing!
I think it's great that my doggies can tote a version of what I have, and it's okay for them to destroy it. lol
November 11, 2006
Further Ruminations
During the wonderful year I spent in Little Rock, Arkansas, as a law clerk to The Honorable Morris Sheppard Arnold, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, I learned a great deal about jurisprudence. I also added a number of colorful new expressions to my vocabulary, including one of my favorites, "I [just about/haven't quite] chewed all the sugar out of that gum." In other words, "I [have/have not] finished with that subject."
Judging by your emails, I haven't quite chewed all of the sugar out of the Chewy Vuiton [sic] case, a.k.a. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC. In a decision handed down last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (a.k.a. the rocket docket) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, a manufacturer of products for pampered pooches. The line of dog beds and toys includes a number of humorous versions of luxury brands, including Furrari, Jimmy Chew, Sniffany & Co., Chewel #5...and, of course, the Chewy Vuiton "handbag" toys and beds at issue in the case. (They're even labeled "parody items" -- probably a lawyer's idea.)
The court, in a "punny" opinion tailor-made for law school casebooks, analyzed claims of trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, and copyright, concluding in each instance that either Haute Diggity Dog had engaged in legimate parody or Louis Vuitton had failed to make its case. The most interesting part of the opinion, legally speaking, is that it is the first case to address the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, which became law on October 6, 2006.
In trademark law, the basic standard for infringement is "likelihood of consumer confusion." Just like famous people, however, famous trademarks are surrounded by additional security. If a trademark is famous, e.g. Louis Vuitton, the trademark holder need not prove a likelihood of confusion, but only (under the new act) a likelihood of dilution. This dilution may take the form of making the famous mark less distinctive because there are so many other similar marks out there (dilution by blurring) or harming the reputation of the famous mark by associating it with certain other goods (dilution by tarnishment).
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act in some ways makes life easier for the owners of famous marks, who now need only prove likelihood of dilution rather than actual dilution, but it also clarifies a number of "fair use" exceptions to infringement. Among these fair uses is parody, which essentially takes legal notice of our collective sense of humor.
Although Louis Vuitton brought its action against Haute Diggity Dog well before the new law took effect, it requested an injunction against sales of Chewy Vuiton merchandise. Since an injunction by definition affects future rather than past action, the court concluded that the new act should apply -- and thus based its analysis of trademark dilution (including the parody defense) on new rather than old law.
Although a parody defense can be enough to drive a trademark owner barking mad (OK, tried to resist; couldn't), it is based on the fact that our cultural referents are often commodified. We no longer sit and tell stories around the fire; we sit around watching programs and ads on television (which Marshal McLuhan reportedly called "the campfire of the global village"). If Louis Vuitton has become cultural shorthand for high-end luxury goods, it's no wonder that the owners of cultivated canines are amused by the recursive reference.
Does that mean that LV can't protect its trademarks against blatant copying or individuals who are simply trying to trade on the famous name? Surely not. But if an allegedly infringing copy makes the judge laugh, things don't look good for the trademark owner.
I think that LVMH needs to route all the lawyers it's taking for this case to get Fendi and Prada out of Walmart and Sam's club and other big discount chains.
And whoever owns Coach, I saw some cheap fakes at TARGET last week.
And they sold out fast for astronomical prices because we tend to trust large retailers aren't selling cheap NYC Canal Street fakes!
THAT is the stuff that is harming the consumers, not chewy vuittons. lol
And whoever owns Coach, I saw some cheap fakes at TARGET last week.
And they sold out fast for astronomical prices because we tend to trust large retailers aren't selling cheap NYC Canal Street fakes!
THAT is the stuff that is harming the consumers, not chewy vuittons. lol
First of all I want to applaude twinkle with writing that email as it says everything that I think about the case and really, as I said before, it's idiotic to sue a dog toy maker when the people who make counterfeit purses and try and sell them off as real does a lot more damage.
Anyways, as far as I've understood, replicas (to my understanding of the term, that is "inspired" items with different logos etc that doesn't try to come off as real) are not illegal as far as I know neither where I live, in the US or in France. Just look at chains like h&m etc, they produce stuff that looks like more high end stuff all the time, but it doesn't mean they are doing anything illegal.
That is what these toys are. They are parodys of the real thing, but it is "inspired" in terms that it doesn't have the LV logos on it and that it is sold under another name. If anything, I see those toys as a tribute.
By the way, not to be arrogant, but calling this trafficing is waaay over the line. I doubt a Nevada based toy making company are doing anything illegal, however it is a known fact that those who makes counterfeit bags run sweatshops etc, so if you want to advocate human rights, please take it to the right arena, and not a toy manufacturer.
These are just too cute. Check out the shallow shoe obsessing going on with this doggy! He needs to join tPF! lol
