Archive for the ‘Litigation’ Category

Well, that settles it…

Saturday, August 2nd, 2008

 Britney Spears Fakey Louis Vuitton Pink Hummer

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.)

Da Brat Louis Vuitton

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."

Ruben Studdard

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.'"

Louis Vuitton wins huge: a Million Dollars in Damages

Saturday, June 28th, 2008

Wynnie Lee Louis Vuitton Lawsuit                     (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.

Louis Vuitton X Murakami X Class Action?

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008

Louis Vuitton MOCA print lawsuit

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.

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Bad Behavior has blocked 493 access attempts in the last 7 days.