I need some direction..

F

Funnygoose

Member
Sep 23, 2010
66
9
#1
I am creating some auction signs for a charity and one of the signs is for a One-of-a-kind Louis Vuitton bag.
So, of course I went to their website and they have a dozen or so vintage bags that they have sewn fringe onto, or wrapped the handles or (gag) attached an animal tail.

I'm pretty sure it is 100% trademark infringement. But they also offer a service where you send them your bag and they "decorate" it for you, which I don't think classifies and trademark infringement.

I am going to let the charity know that they probably don't want to be associated with it... but I don't know. My company is hosting the charity so I don't want to cause any trouble either.

What would you do?
 
#2
This is my opinion.

If the bags are authentic (and they'd better darned well make sure they are), I believe they are allowed to embellish them as they see fit.

But since you say this is an auction and those bags are going to be sold, they MUST be authentic and way too often, they are fake.

IMO, it would be worth the small ($7-10) investment to have the bags authenticated and include the certificate in the sale. I'd expect bids would go higher if the buyers know they're getting genuine LV items.

With this said, if the items aren't being auctioned as originally made by LV, i.e., embellished with tails and fringe, they shouldn't be listed/described or sold as LV but rather, something to the effect of "Louis Vuitton bag with custom added fringe." And the customized changes made should be made crystal clear to buyers that it's not as originally designed by LV.

And if the bags are counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags, they can't be sold or auctioned AT ALL. Charity or not, it's illegal, no matter how they're described, how they're dressed up or even if they're sold as fake.
 
#3
Thank you.

I don't have any of them in hand but they call them new vintage, so I'm assuming they are truly vintage. I'm more concerned with people thinking that they are a one-of-a-kind bag made by LV.

I don't know patent law, but I thought that if the product could be mistaken as made by the patent holder, that it is indeed trademark infringement.

I'm just going to let it go and hope no one bids on the horror that is that bag.

Glad I posted before I ran my mouth lol.
 
#4
Funnygoose said:
I don't know patent law, but I thought that if the product could be mistaken as made by the patent holder, that it is indeed trademark infringement.
Click to expand...
If the bags are authentic, they can be legally sold and altered (if some idjit wishes to do so) but it shouldn't be sold as "LV" but rather, "Altered, embellished (or whatever adjective) LV."

Honestly though, based on history of charity auctions and charity stores, I'd question authenticity before alterations.

JMHO.
 
#5
I will definitely be checking authenticity.

I did find this on american bar dot org

"The first sale doctrine does not protect alleged infringers who sell trademarked goods that are “materially different” from those sold by the trademark owner or its authorized dealers. A material difference from authorized goods creates confusion over the source of the product and results in loss of the trademark owner’s good will. In other words, materially different goods sold by an unauthorized seller are not considered “genuine,” because they are confusingly different."
 
#7
Funnygoose said:
I will definitely be checking authenticity.

I did find this on american bar dot org

"The first sale doctrine does not protect alleged infringers who sell trademarked goods that are “materially different” from those sold by the trademark owner or its authorized dealers. A material difference from authorized goods creates confusion over the source of the product and results in loss of the trademark owner’s good will. In other words, materially different goods sold by an unauthorized seller are not considered “genuine,” because they are confusingly different."
Click to expand...
I take "trademarked goods that are materially different" to mean a counterfeit item. (Materially different meaning not like anything made by the company.)

In other words, first sale doctrine doesn't give anyone the right to sell fakes because it can be confusing to buyers.

As an example of something I've seen many times, I'll offer an illustration.

There are sellers who buy Coach keychains, disassemble them and use the separate charms to make "repurposed" jewelry. Assuming the keychain was genuine, there is a correct and an incorrect (infringing) way to list the homemade jewelry:

INCORRECTLY listed #1: "Coach necklace with heart charm" -- Disallowed, infringing and confusing because it's NOT a Coach necklace. Coach makes necklaces but not in this style.
CORRECTLY listed #2: Silver chain necklace made with genuine Coach heart charm -- Legitimate listing because they aren't confusing buyers by calling it a Coach necklace.

So to go back to your original question and my comments, the listing you're asking about shouldn't be implied to having been made by LV with the tail and the fringe but should make it clear that although the original bags are authentic (once you've confirmed them to be), the addition of the tchotchkes are not done by LV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back