Toymaker v Louis Vuitton Assignment
Added on 2022-09-14
4 Pages609 Words12 Views
Running head: TOYMAKER V. LOUIS VUITTON
TOYMAKER V. LOUIS VUITTON
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
TOYMAKER V. LOUIS VUITTON
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1
TOYMAKER V. LOUIS VUITTON
1. Louis Vuitton or LV is one of the luxury retail companies in the world which is based
in Paris. It comes within the world's top 19 most valuable luxury brand. Louis Vuitton
is also one of the most counterfeited products. Its LV monogram is said to be one of
the most desirable and valuable brands. It has been seen that the signature Monogram
Canvas of the luxurious product was created to avert counterfeiting practice. Louis
Vuitton is protective of its image due to the identical fake products available in the
world market which often manipulates the customer worldwide who wanted to obtain
the original product from the brand but end up buying a false one. It is to be further
added that, the counterfeit products are so identical regarding the styles and designs,
which leads to hampering the image of the good quality and brand value which the
original product assures to their customer and further leads to losing potential
customer of the company.
2. Louis Vuitton before filing a legal suit against any other company alleging that they
have parodied their branded products must need to know the actual definition of
parody. In legal parlance, it is not permissible to use the product invented by another
person and which is protected under copyright law without the permission of the
inventor of such a product. On the other hand, parody means imitating the artistic
work of an artist or author the sole purpose of which is to ridicule or give a comic
effect to the act and it can be used as a fair defense to the copyright protection rule.
Therefore, Louis Vuitton must consider the factors of their defeat in previous cases
such as Louis Vuitton v. MOB. In the case of Vuitton v. MOB, the court rejects LV’s
plea of trademark infringement and dilution against MOB and held that LV has failed
to provide adequate evidence to prove trademark infringement by MOB in making
their regular tote bags by using various designs of LV. The court held that MOB will
successfully get the defense of fair use, as their product establishes the requirement of
TOYMAKER V. LOUIS VUITTON
1. Louis Vuitton or LV is one of the luxury retail companies in the world which is based
in Paris. It comes within the world's top 19 most valuable luxury brand. Louis Vuitton
is also one of the most counterfeited products. Its LV monogram is said to be one of
the most desirable and valuable brands. It has been seen that the signature Monogram
Canvas of the luxurious product was created to avert counterfeiting practice. Louis
Vuitton is protective of its image due to the identical fake products available in the
world market which often manipulates the customer worldwide who wanted to obtain
the original product from the brand but end up buying a false one. It is to be further
added that, the counterfeit products are so identical regarding the styles and designs,
which leads to hampering the image of the good quality and brand value which the
original product assures to their customer and further leads to losing potential
customer of the company.
2. Louis Vuitton before filing a legal suit against any other company alleging that they
have parodied their branded products must need to know the actual definition of
parody. In legal parlance, it is not permissible to use the product invented by another
person and which is protected under copyright law without the permission of the
inventor of such a product. On the other hand, parody means imitating the artistic
work of an artist or author the sole purpose of which is to ridicule or give a comic
effect to the act and it can be used as a fair defense to the copyright protection rule.
Therefore, Louis Vuitton must consider the factors of their defeat in previous cases
such as Louis Vuitton v. MOB. In the case of Vuitton v. MOB, the court rejects LV’s
plea of trademark infringement and dilution against MOB and held that LV has failed
to provide adequate evidence to prove trademark infringement by MOB in making
their regular tote bags by using various designs of LV. The court held that MOB will
successfully get the defense of fair use, as their product establishes the requirement of
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Facts According to Roger docx.lg...
|4
|698
|27