Couldn't agree more. Just because LV has done something before doesn't mean it has or should have a stronghold on all future similar (but not identical) designs.
Great example hahaha
Slightly Suspicious Prada "Bellman"
- Thread starter ValleyO
- Start date
Without going into a whole boring discussion of copyright...
Certain things can't be copyrighted because they are standard, like the shape of a tote bag or a speedy. However, when someone does something unique to that standard shape, that unique thing can be copyrighted but not the shape of the bag.
Here's a fun fact. LV lost the initial lawsuit againt Dooney because it only copyrighted its monogram as yellow on brown and not multi-colored on a colored background. If you Google, you can find the original case and all of the appeals.
The law has a remedy for when items or words are "confusingly similar." Would you mistake the bellman for the groom? Maybe, and that's what LV lawyers will probably argue if this goes to court.
They tried that argument in the Dooney case and Dooney's lawyers hit back with everything from LV has a different market segment to nobody could possibly mistake a hot pink Dooney with their monogram for an LV.
Just because something is common sense to you doesn't mean that there isn't a legal issue or a lawsuit.
I'm going to wait and see...
Certain things can't be copyrighted because they are standard, like the shape of a tote bag or a speedy. However, when someone does something unique to that standard shape, that unique thing can be copyrighted but not the shape of the bag.
Here's a fun fact. LV lost the initial lawsuit againt Dooney because it only copyrighted its monogram as yellow on brown and not multi-colored on a colored background. If you Google, you can find the original case and all of the appeals.
The law has a remedy for when items or words are "confusingly similar." Would you mistake the bellman for the groom? Maybe, and that's what LV lawyers will probably argue if this goes to court.
They tried that argument in the Dooney case and Dooney's lawyers hit back with everything from LV has a different market segment to nobody could possibly mistake a hot pink Dooney with their monogram for an LV.
Just because something is common sense to you doesn't mean that there isn't a legal issue or a lawsuit.
I'm going to wait and see...
Last edited:
Great post! This is exactly what I was getting at but not wanting to type it all out (lazy Sarah!)
As I explained earlier, that's not a unique shape, so it can't be copyrighted. Here's a link to the US Trademark & Copyright Office's FAQ: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#copyright
Think of it as Prada borrowing the Monopoly Man without permission. Parker Bros. would sue the silk pants off of Miuccia.
It's not a question of being a fangirl of either Prada or LV. There's a legal question here: Would purchasers of LV's Groom mistake Prada's Bellman for an LV product?
Of course, this is US law and since neither Prada nor LV is based here I would imagine this case would be fought in France or Italy.
Think of it as Prada borrowing the Monopoly Man without permission. Parker Bros. would sue the silk pants off of Miuccia.
It's not a question of being a fangirl of either Prada or LV. There's a legal question here: Would purchasers of LV's Groom mistake Prada's Bellman for an LV product?
Of course, this is US law and since neither Prada nor LV is based here I would imagine this case would be fought in France or Italy.
ok, i know ya'll's fangirls to the max, but when Goyard doesn't sue LVMH for basically "stealing" their design, why should Prada be in trouble?
i mean, look at that! and that was released WAY WAY before the Neverfull.
Last edited: