Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC
81 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1064, 464 F. Supp. 2d 495, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80575 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parody of a famous trademark, when used on a dissimilar and inexpensive product, does not constitute trademark infringement, dilution, or copyright infringement because it is unlikely to cause consumer confusion and qualifies as a fair use.
Facts:
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. (LVM) is a manufacturer of luxury goods, including handbags, with a famous and registered Monogram Canvas Pattern Design mark.
- LVM manufactures a limited number of high-end pet products, such as leashes and collars, with prices ranging from $250 to $1600.
- Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (HDD) markets inexpensive plush stuffed toys for dogs under names that parody famous luxury brands.
- HDD created and sold a line of dog toys and beds under the name 'Chewy Vuiton,' designed to imitate LVM's products, with features like an interlocking 'CV' instead of 'LV'.
- HDD's 'Chewy Vuiton' products are sold in pet stores for around $10-$20, alongside other pet supplies.
- LVM does not manufacture or sell dog chew toys.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. filed suit against Haute Diggity Dog, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The complaint alleged trademark infringement, trademark dilution, counterfeiting, and copyright violation.
- Both Plaintiff (Louis Vuitton) and Defendants (Haute Diggity Dog) filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor without a full trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a company's sale of inexpensive plush dog toys named 'Chewy Vuiton', which mimic the trade dress of Louis Vuitton's luxury handbags, constitute trademark infringement, dilution, or copyright infringement?
Opinions:
Majority - James C. Cacheris
No, the sale of 'Chewy Vuiton' dog toys does not constitute trademark infringement, dilution, or copyright infringement. A successful parody of a famous mark on a dissimilar product is unlikely to cause consumer confusion and is protected as fair use. For trademark infringement, the court analyzed the 'likelihood of confusion' factors and concluded they favored HDD. The strength and fame of LVM's mark actually make confusion less likely, as consumers immediately recognize the parody. The products are dissimilar in quality, price, and function (luxury handbags vs. cheap dog toys), and they are sold in different marketing channels. The court found no evidence of actual confusion or bad faith intent to confuse; HDD's intent was to parody, not to pass off its goods as LVM's. For the dilution claim, the court found no likelihood of blurring because the parody's success depends on the public's continued association of the mark with LVM, thereby not impairing its distinctiveness. It also found no tarnishment, as the parody was a harmless pun and did not associate LVM's mark with low quality or an unwholesome context. Finally, regarding copyright infringement, the court held that HDD's use of the design was a protected 'fair use' because it was a transformative parody that did not usurp the market for LVM's original work.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces parody as a robust defense against trademark infringement and dilution claims, particularly when the parody product occupies a different market from the original. It clarifies that in the context of parody, a famous mark's strength can actually weigh against a finding of confusion, as consumers are more likely to recognize the joke. The case provides a clear framework for analyzing parodies by showing that similarity to the original, which is typically a key factor for infringement, is necessary for the parody to function and does not automatically lead to liability. This ruling offers protection for creators of satirical or humorous products that comment on famous brands, so long as there is no genuine likelihood of confusion as to source or sponsorship.
