Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Louis Vuitton vs Haute Diggity Dog
Transcript of Louis Vuitton vs Haute Diggity Dog
Paola Gabriela Pérez González
Andrea Castilla Castilla
Idalia Ziehl Pierdant Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A vs. Haute Diggity Dog LLC Introduction Cost Campaign Louis Vuitton "multicolour design"
Cost bag: $1190
Cost Campaign $4 million
Sold at Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus ISSUE PRESENTED: Louis Vuitton (LV) claimed of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, trade dress infringement, copyright infringement OUTCOME The district court of United States of America outlined the following six factors in determining the dissolution of the case. ACCORDING TO MEXICAN
LEGISLATION Article 88 of the Industrial Property Law states that a trademark is every visible sign that distinguishes products or services from other of the same kind in the market. Problem Haute Diggity Dog manufactured an imitation of Louis Vuitton’s handbags under the name of “chewy Vuitton”. 2002... Louis Vuitton launched a version of their handbags that consisted in a white background with the repetition of the LV monogram and the flowers in different color Multicolour design by the Japanese designer Takashi Murakami. copyright 2004 designs attracted all the media attention and publicity Haute Diggity Dog "Chewy Vuiton"
Cost accessory: $20 to $100
Sold at Macy´s “chewy Vuitton” such as “dog perignon” from Dom Perignon, “furcedes” for “Mercedes”, “sniffany & co.” for Tiffany & Co. “doginor” for Dior and “chewnel no.5” for Channel No. 5. The Louis Vuitton mark. A stylized monogram of "LV" (LV mark).
Monogram Canvas mark.
Cherry design. their toys were merely a parody
and they argued there was not a chance
that their product would be confused
with the ones of LV LV does not make dog toys so they are not losing any market power or prestige. the designs in spite of being very similar were not the same and the differences were really clear. Copyright protects original works of authorship including artistic works; it DOESN´T protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, there was no infringement, and as CV was proved to be a parody and not a copy, they are breaking neither a copyright nor a trademark. There were not such
infringements 1. The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark. The court did not directly apply those factors it enumerated. a parody dog toy product TDRA (Trademark Dilution
Revision Act) Forbidden a person from using a
junior mark that is likely to dilute by
blurring the famous mark. Distinctiveness LVM has failed to make out
a case of trademark dilution
when establishing the
distinctiveness of its marks. Article 213 of the Industrial Property Law states the following actions as infractions in administrative matters.
Thank you for your
attention Article 90 of the Industrial Property Law enlists the cases in which a brand will not be considered. Article 214 of the Industrial Property Law explains and specifies the sanctions that are applicable in the event of committing any of the infractions mentioned in Article 213 of the same law. 2. The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark. 3. The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark. 4. The degree of recognition of the famous mark. 5. Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark. 6.Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark.