Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., Docket No. 04-4941-Cv
454 F.3d 108, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 16774, 79 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1481 (2006)
Rule of Law:
A court determining the likelihood of confusion in a trademark infringement case must assess the marks' similarity by focusing on how consumers view them sequentially in actual market conditions, rather than through an overemphasized side-by-side comparison. To establish federal trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate actual dilution of its famous mark, not merely a likelihood of dilution.
Facts:
- Louis Vuitton (Vuitton), a French design firm established in 1893, created the Toile Monogram design in 1896, featuring entwined LV initials and three distinct motifs, which are registered and incontestable trademarks.
- In October 2002, Vuitton launched a new line of "Murakami handbags" featuring the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore pattern, which updated the traditional Toile marks by printing them in 33 bright colors on white or black backgrounds.
- Vuitton spent over $4 million in 2003-2004 promoting the Multicolore mark, which garnered significant media attention and celebrity endorsement.
- Dooney & Bourke, an American handbag designer founded in 1975, has sold bags since 2001 featuring its registered "DB" monogram in a repeated pattern.
- In March 2003, Peter Dooney, Dooney & Bourke's chief designer, traveled to Italy with a "Teen Vogue It Team," during which the group was photographed viewing Vuitton's Multicolore handbags in a store window and examining Multicolore fabric swatches.
- In late July 2003, Dooney & Bourke introduced its "IN Bag" collection, which featured its "DB" monogram in an array of bright colors set against a white background, with intertwined initials printed forward and backward in repeating diagonal rows, and a multi-color zipper.
- In October 2003, Dooney & Bourke began selling the IN Bag collection with a black background, later expanding to include other colored backgrounds.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Vuitton Malletier sent a cease-and-desist letter to Dooney & Bourke, Inc. on April 16, 2004.
- Louis Vuitton Malletier filed an action against Dooney & Bourke, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 19, 2004, asserting claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation, and trademark dilution under federal and New York state law.
- Louis Vuitton Malletier moved for a preliminary injunction on April 28, 2004.
- Following a seven-day hearing on the motion, the district court issued an opinion on August 27, 2004, denying Louis Vuitton Malletier's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding no likelihood of confusion and no proven dilution under either federal or state law.
- Louis Vuitton Malletier, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Dooney & Bourke, Inc. was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the district court err by applying a heightened standard for a preliminary injunction and improperly assessing the likelihood of confusion in a trademark infringement claim by overemphasizing a side-by-side comparison of the marks rather than considering actual market conditions and sequential viewing? 2. Did the district court err in denying a preliminary injunction for federal trademark dilution when the plaintiff failed to show evidence of actual dilution of its famous mark?
Opinions:
Majority - CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge.
Yes, the district court erred by applying an incorrect standard for a preliminary injunction and by improperly assessing the likelihood of confusion through an overemphasized side-by-side comparison of the marks rather than focusing on actual market conditions and sequential viewing. However, no, the district court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction for federal trademark dilution, as the plaintiff failed to present evidence of actual dilution, which is required under federal law. The court first determined that the district court applied an incorrect, heightened standard for a preliminary injunction, effectively requiring a "clear" or "substantial" likelihood of success on the merits, which is typically reserved for mandatory injunctions that alter the status quo. A prohibitory injunction, such as one to stop alleged trademark infringement, generally requires only a likelihood of success. Regarding trademark infringement, the court agreed with the district court that Vuitton's Multicolore mark is protectable as inherently distinctive and having acquired secondary meaning. However, the court found that the district court erred in assessing the likelihood of confusion by improperly focusing on a side-by-side comparison of the Louis Vuitton and Dooney & Bourke marks. Citing its prior ruling in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., the court reiterated that courts must analyze the mark's overall impression on a consumer, considering the context in which marks are displayed and the totality of factors that could cause confusion among prospective purchasers. The court emphasized that when initial-interest and post-sale confusion are claimed, market conditions must be closely examined to determine if differences between marks are memorable enough to dispel confusion upon sequential viewing. The district court's explicit reliance on "clarity that comes from direct observation" in its reasoning exemplified this flawed approach. Regarding federal trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), the court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction. Citing Moseley v. V. Secret Catalogue, Inc., the court held that a plaintiff must show actual dilution, not merely a likelihood of dilution, to obtain injunctive relief for a famous mark, even if consumers mentally associate the junior mark with the famous mark. Vuitton failed to offer evidence that Dooney & Bourke's use of a similar mark had reduced the capacity of Vuitton’s Multicolore mark to identify Vuitton's goods. Finally, the court vacated and remanded the state law claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution. It noted that New York's unfair competition statute is analyzed similarly to the Lanham Act, and the New York dilution standard requires only a "likelihood of dilution," which is less stringent than the federal "actual dilution" standard. Therefore, the district court's reconsideration of the "similarity of the marks" factor under the Lanham Act would also be relevant to the state law claims.
Analysis:
This case clarifies crucial procedural and substantive aspects of trademark law. Procedurally, it underscores that courts must apply the correct preliminary injunction standard (likelihood of success for prohibitory injunctions) and avoid an overreliance on side-by-side comparisons when assessing likelihood of confusion, especially in cases involving initial-interest and post-sale confusion. Substantively, it reinforces the demanding "actual dilution" standard for federal dilution claims, distinguishing it from the less stringent "likelihood of dilution" standard applicable under New York state law. This distinction is vital for plaintiffs in choosing the appropriate legal avenues and for courts in applying the correct legal tests, significantly impacting intellectual property litigation strategies and the protection of famous marks.
