(T.I. at his T.I. vs T.I.P. release party at LV Lenox Mall last year)

Looks like Louis Vuitton and Gucci didn’t appreciate the exposure they were getting from the video for T.I.’s “Swing Ya Rag”. In fact, they claimed infringment and put the kibosh on the whole thing…

The lyrics are all about “Louis” and “Gucci”.  The chorus:

“Alright, okay, I don’t dance, no way
I just take my Louis rag out and wave it round in the air
Take my Gucci rag out and wave it round in the air”

(This is a screenshot from the making of the “Swing ya Rag” video.)

TI said about the song:

“It’s self explanatory.  It’s about swinging your Gucci rag or your Louis rag.  And, you know, I think I introduced that, I think I introduced that fashion trend to the world.  I do believe I was the first one, man you know what I’m saying, to tie a Gucci rag to my beltloop, man… match with your shirt… let it match with your shoes.  I do believe, if I’m not mistaken.  But. You know basically man, what we’re going to with it man, we’re going to represent the influence of Gucci and Louis Vuitton to the hood.  Not the influence that it has in Hollywood, we’re all familiar with that.  I’m talking about the influence that Louis Vuitton and Gucci has had to the hood.  You know what I’m saying. When we wear it, how we wear it and why we wear it.”

Tip (who along with Swizz Beatz produced the video) said to MTV:

“We did it, and it came out hot, Louis [Vuitton] and Gucci started trippin’ about it. They were saying we were infringing, in one way or another. They weren’t happy about it. They didn’t want it to come out. “

So, it’s not coming out.  And the blogs are ablaze about why LV lets some videos go, and others not.

All I have to say is- whether you’re from the ‘hood or the ‘wood… we’d love to sell you some “rags”!  We’ve always got a great variety of pre-owned, authentic Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Gucci, Chanel- you name it scarves & bandanas.  Be sure to check it out!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

So it looks like eBay isn’t taking it’s recent HUGE losses (against LVMH and Hermes) in Europe sitting down.

Tod Cohen, (Deputy General Counsel for eBay) has apparently asked the commissioner of Anti-trust issues in the European Union to look into some of these companies that are using tight (and arguably “anti-competitive” and  “abusive”) distribution agreements to keep their products off of eBay.

Cohen contends that these companies’ policies are “manipulating and controlling the markets beyond EU market rules”.

Interesting quote from Neelie Kroes, European Union Competition Commissioner:

“There are a number of practices that are being used to restrict cross-border sales, which I think require a closer look.

Like I’ve always said, I back any companies’ efforts to protect their good name and reputation.  eBay bears some responsibility in this- mainly in working closely with Trademark owners in keeping the market clean.  (They could do more- in requiring real verification for all users for starters!)  But they’re doing a ton of what they can do.  What they aren’t good at is combing through all of the listings for fakes.  This is where there needs to be coordination and cooperation with the Brand holders themselves.

The idea that a company can restrict my ability to resell any item that I have legitimately purchased, because they don’t want it sold in an particular venue is just craziness.  I mean, so you buy a Mercedes from an authorized Mercedes dealership, and you are never allowed to resell your vehicle?  Come on!

That’s what LVMH has done in France.  Let’s say that I live in France and get J’Adore Dior perfume (Dior is owned by LVMH) for my birthday.  And let’s just say that I’m also allergic to perfumes.  I am not allowed by LVMH or eBay since the decision earlier this year (unless Mr. Cohen’s efforts prove victorious) to sell that perfume on eBay.

Let’s just hope that at the very least that kind of nonsense doesn’t get worse (more limitations… and more lawsuits), and at best that people will be able have full rights of resale to anything that they legally and lawfully buy with their hard earned money.

Can’t these companies see how limiting resale reduces the value of their luxury brands?

Read more from Retail Week.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Louis Vuitton isn’t kicking back in its efforts to get rid of counterfeits and knock-offs that violate their trademark.

You can see a watch above made by City Chain under its Solvil name.  And you can also see the logos that Louis Vuitton has taken issue with.

Anyway, they’re battling it out now in Singapore.  Louis Vuitton claiming all the usual: their rights to the trademark, similarity in symbols, dilution of the market, the likelihood of confusion between the two, the reputation of the brand, and damage to exclusivity etc.

City Chain’s claiming that they aren’t using trademarked logos- just designs… and their name is clearly imprinted on each piece.  They also say that their prices are so different (low) to Louis Vuitton’s as to make their customers unique (no comfusion or dilution).

Interesting stuff… read the Strait Times for more info.

Picture Credit:  LV Tambour- Eluxury, Solviv- Lianhe Zaoboa, Strait Times

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Remember the Sony BMG case from last year- where Louis Vuitton sued for unauthorized use of their trademark?  Well, it looks like the case was settled for an undisclosed sum.  Rumors put it at $240,000 and $155,830 for both cases.

It was over quite a few issues, including the Britney Spears video “Do Somethin’”, pictured above, where she’s driving the Pink Hummer with fakey cherry blossom interior, Ruben Studdard’s Louis Vuitton monogramed cover for his “The Return” CD, and a video of Da Brat’s where there are just a bunch of different LV pieces pictured that Louis Vuitton never did (beach umbrella? Multicolore Beach Ball?  etc. etc.)

This comment from Crains made total sense to me:

“Sony’s case against Louis Vuitton was likely damaged by the fact that the artists did not use genuine LVMH products in the infractions, said Peter Sloane, an attorney at Ostrolenk Faber LLP who specializes in trademarks and copyrights. In the case of Ms. Spears, Louis Vuitton does not make dashboard covers or even sell reams of logo fabric that could be fashioned as such.”

I mean, this is just true.  I’ve seen album covers with authentic Louis Vuitton luggage on it (Dwight Yoakam anyone) and music videos that include authentic Louis Vuitton pieces in them (numerous including Fergie’s classic, My Humps).  I mean, Kanye West declared himself the Louis Vuitton Don- and LVMH’s response?  He’s now designing a footware line for Louis Vuitton, sits front row at LV fashion shows & is paid big bucks to play for their parties.  Even Louis Vuitton likes the right kind of exposure.  The real key is, at the very least- the items have to be authentic.

Part of the terms of the settlement are that Ruben’s CD’s are pulled- and that Britney and Da Brat’s videos are no longer distributed.  I mean, it’s too bad, but I really can not believe that these people have professional managers and advisors, and none of were told that this would be wrong.

I love the little note at the bottom of this New Yorker Magazine article that says,

“In fact, according to our calculations, with the total winnings minus the Studdard bonus, the company can buy itself, why, 130 airport rolling bags!” (The Louis Vuitton retails at between about $1900 and $2995)

But it clearly wasn’t about the money.  Another part of the settlement required the parties to admit they were wrong, and to refrain from violating Louis Vuitton’s intellectual property rights.

From, Marketwatch:

“Nathalie Moulle-Berteaux, Intellectual Property Director of Louis Vuitton said, ‘We are very pleased to have successfully resolved these matters in a manner that protects our brand and our customers. We believe the terms of this agreement will provide strong protection to our brand worldwide, and we are gratified that Sony BMG has agreed to educate its record labels about our trademarks and copyrights in order to prevent the misuse of our intellectual property in the future.’”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

                     (Mark Patrick for the Richmond Review)

The British Colombia Supreme Court said Friday, that owners of Wynnie Lee Fashions must pay $980,000 in damages to Louis Vuitton Canada Inc.

Apparently, Louis Vuitton Canada has been trying to get this family to stop selling counterfeits for years now.  In 2004, hundreds of items were seized by court order.  In 2005, Louis Vuitton sent cease and desist letters which ended up with a federal court judgment against them.

This is the ironic part, the Monday after the landmark, million dollar judgement, the BC Local News reported:

“Gucci, Baby Phat and Coach handbags were selling for half price Monday afternoon at Wynnie Lee Fashions on No. 3 Road, where the sole sales clerk appeared oblivious to a landmark court decision that came down against the store late last week.

What appeared to be counterfeit name-brand purses continued to be openly offered for the bargain basement price of $50, and the store was packed with lunch-time shoppers.”

Wow.  Some people never learn.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Yipes. So, it seems that Clint Arthur bought two Murakami prints at the MOCA pop up Louis Vuitton boutique for $6,000 each.

He came home and I guess he felt a little miffed because 1) there was no authentication paperwork and 2) the paperwork he did have said that, “This artwork is signed and numbered by the artist on the chassis.” He was hoping for a “this is number 12 out of 100 type thing… But. the only thing on the back was a “a dark M-shaped squiggle”.

Anyway… so he goes poking around and he finds that Sections 1740-1745 of the California Civil Code gives specific guidelines for art dealers selling “multiples”.

The deal is that California law mandates that sellers of limited edition pieces of art to disclose specific information on authenticity and the limited nature of the work. Which sounds fair…

But get this… violation of these sections allows for triple damages! Interesting that he’s suing Louis Vuitton- not Murakami or MOCA.  Yeah- something tells me he’s hoping to make quite a turnaround on that $12,000 investment!

Read more on this story from the LA Times.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!