No, it is not illegal. The court decided that 'Chewy Vuiton' is a parody, which is a type of joke. For a joke like this to be legal, it has to remind you of the real thing but also be different enough that you know it's a joke. The court said that nobody would actually be confused and think that Louis Vuitton started making cheap, squeaky dog toys. The fact that Louis Vuitton is so famous actually helps the toy company, because everyone gets the joke. The court also said the toy doesn't harm Louis Vuitton's fancy reputation because it's just a silly commentary on luxury brands.

The appeals court agreed with the first court. They said the 'Chewy Vuiton' toys are obviously a joke and won't make people think they are real Louis Vuitton products. 

The court explained that for a trademark dilution claim, Louis Vuitton had to prove the parody would make their brand less special. But the court found the opposite - a funny parody might make the Louis Vuitton brand even more famous and iconic.

Louis Vuitton also couldn't prove the toys would harm their reputation just because they said a dog might choke on them.

The court rejected all of Louis Vuitton's other arguments too. In the end, the parody dog toys were allowed because they didn't break trademark laws.

To state a dilution claim, a plaintiff must show (1) that the plaintiff owns a famous mark that is distinctive,(2) that the defendant has commenced using a mark in commerce that is allegedly diluting the famous mark,(3) that a similarity between the defendant's mark and the famous mark gives rise to an association between the marks, and (4) that the association is likely to …

For the purposes of trademark analysis, "a parody is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark's owner."

We concluded that a successful parody "might actually enhance the famous mark's distinctiveness by making it an icon. The brunt of the joke becomes yet more famous."

To prove trademark infringement, plaintiff must show "(1) that it owns a valid and protectable mark;(2) the [defendants] used a re-production, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of that mark in commerce and without [plaintiff's] consent; and (3) that [defendants'] use is likely to cause confusion."

—affirming summary judgment on the plaintiff's counterfeiting claims because "Chewy Vuiton" and the "CV" monograph design were not "substantially indistinguishable" from the "LOUIS VUITTON" and "LV" mark, and the defendant was "not selling knock-off LOUIS VUITTON handbags with a counterfeit LV mark

In the Fourth Circuit's Louis Vuitton case, Louis Vuitton Malletier SA—the famous maker of luxury luggage, handbags, and accessories—asserted, inter alia, a trademark dilution claim against Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, a manufacturer of pet toys that named its products to "parody elegant high-end brands of products such as perfume, cars, shoes, sparkling wine, and …

Alternatively, the district court held that Rosetta Stone failed to satisfy the fourth and final element of its trademark dilution claim requiring that the plaintiff show defendant's use is "likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark or likely to harm the reputation of the famous mark."

The Fourth Circuit has explained that "[n] ot every factor will be relevant in every case, and not ever blurring claim will require extensive discussion of the factors." Id

"The latter message `must not only differentiate the alleged parody from the original but must also communicate some articulable element of satire, ridicule, joking, or amusement.'"

It is a matter of common sense that the strength of a famous mark allows consumers immediately to perceive the target of the parody, while simultaneously allowing them to recognize the changes to the mark that make the parody funny or biting

No, the sale of the 'Chewy Vuiton' parody dog toys does not constitute trademark infringement or dilution. For a parody to avoid infringement, it must simultaneously evoke the original mark while also communicating that it is not the original; a successful parody negates the likelihood of confusion. Regarding dilution, while parody used as a trademark is not a fair use defense, a successful parody is unlikely to impair the distinctiveness of a famous mark and may even enhance it by making the original an icon.

The court found the 'Chewy Vuiton' toys to be a successful parody. For the infringement claim, applying the 'Pizzeria Uno' factors, the court reasoned that no likelihood of confusion existed. The strength of LVM's mark helps consumers recognize the parody, and the vast differences in product type (luxury handbag vs. dog toy), price, and marketing channels prevent confusion. The court concluded an intent to parody is not an intent to confuse.

For the dilution claim under the TDRA, the court found no dilution by blurring. Because the parody is successful and does not use the actual LVM marks, it does not impair the distinctiveness of LVM's brand; rather, it makes fun of it. The tarnishment claim failed because LVM provided no evidence, only speculation, that the toy's quality or potential choking hazard would harm LVM's reputation.

The Court affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that the 'Chewy Vuiton' dog toys are successful parodies that are not likely to cause confusion with LVM's products. The Court reasoned that the parody is sufficiently obvious and the products sufficiently dissimilar that a consumer encountering the dog toy would not mistake its source or sponsorship. 

The Court also found that the 'Chewy Vuiton' products do not dilute LVM's trademarks by blurring or tarnishment. In analyzing the dilution by blurring claim under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA), the Court considered the six statutory factors and concluded that LVM failed to make out a dilution claim because the distinctiveness of its marks was not likely to be impaired by the 'Chewy Vuiton' parody. The Court noted that a successful parody might actually enhance the famous mark's distinctiveness by making it an icon.

Regarding the dilution by tarnishment claim, the Court found that LVM provided no record support for its assertion that a dog could choke on the 'Chewy Vuiton' toy and thereby harm the reputation of the LOUIS VUITTON mark.

The Court also rejected LVM's claims for counterfeiting, trade dress infringement, and copyright infringement, finding them unsupported by the facts of the case.

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot