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!

OK… so follow me here. A French court found in favor of Louis Vuitton in a trademark counterfeiting, unfair competition and misleading advertising battle they’ve been waging with internet behemoth , Google since 2004.

The Court originally awarded Louis Vuitton a paltry $257,430 in damages, but more importantly, the case could dramatically alter the way Google handles selling Adwords- its search-related, sponsored advertisements. Louis Vuitton has (for good reason) a problem with the fact that Google sells it’s trademarked name to the highest bidder (who happens to often times be a counterfeit dealer).

Google has appealed, and the case is now sitting before the European Union’s highest court- the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. Google denies the merits of the Louis Vuitton case and has vowed to “defend vigorously against them.”

Most Google searches you do come up with un-paid results listed on the left/center of the page. But, on the right hand side of the page, you’ll find the results for Google Adwords. To get placement in these results… you have to pay Google. The more you pay per click, the higher you come up in the Google result.

The same results come up in Google Mail. For instance, I just sent a Louis Vuitton related email to myself at one of my Gmail accounts… and this suggested “Sponsored Link” to a site for Louis Vuitton Replicas came up:

Interesting quote from a Louis Vuitton rep re: the case:

“It was absolutely unthinkable that a company like Google be authorized, in the scope of its advertising business, to sell the Louis Vuitton trademark to third parties, specifically to Web sites selling counterfeits. . . This milestone ruling grants protection for the first time to both consumers and brand owners by finding that Google’s Adwords and Premium Sponsorship services as misleading advertising services,”

(As a personal note, I have tried to use Google Adwords to advertise the authentic Louis Vuitton items that we have listed here on our www.fashionphile.com website and fashionphile listings on eBay.com. I have never been able to do so successfully, because Google would not let me use the words “Louis Vuitton,” “damier”, “epi”, etc. in my ad. I always found it odd that I couldn’t do it, but counterfeiters found a way to pull it off… Anyway, I guess this is where that sensitivity came from.)

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

Well it looks like Louis Vuitton settled it’s case against Burlington Coat Factory, and a small handful of handbag suppliers.

Here are the bags in question:

Louis Vuitton took issue with these bags, asserting that they infringed on their intellectual properties.  Vuitton was particularly interested in the obvious copy of it’s famous Takashi Murakami Multicolore Monogram and the historical S-Lock closure.

I can’t tell the actual terms of the settlement from the Press Release other than to say that Burlington et. al is prohibited from:

manufacturing, importing, exporting, promoting, advertising, marketing, distributing, displaying, selling or offering to sell

… any infringing item, and is enjoined from:

reproducing, copying, infringing or counterfeiting Louis Vuitton intellectual properties in connection with manufacturing, promoting, advertising, distributing, displaying, selling or offering to sell any unauthorized goods or services

I love the closing remarks from Nathalie Moulle-Berteaux, Intellectual Property Director of LVMH Fashion Group (representative of both Louis Vuitton and MJ):

 This case was a particularly important one in that it involved some of our most famous trademarks — the Multicolore Monogram and the S-Lock closure — and the products in question included both exact copies and infringing ‘look-alike’ bags. We will continue our relentless fight to protect our brands throughout the world, by vigorously pursuing those who engage in any and all forms of infringing or counterfeiting activity.

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