Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)
FACTS:
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A (LVM)., the Plaintiff manufactured and sold luxury handbags.
For “LOUIS VUITTON,” a monogrammed “LV,” and a monogrammed design made up of many “LV” marks, were the registered trademarks.
The Defendant, LLC Haute Diggity Dog (HDD), produced and sold cheap, plush dog toys that were parodied of well-known luxury brands.
The toys were labelled “Chewy Vuiton” and imitated LVM’s “LV” mark with a “CV.”
LVM sued for trademark dilution based on, among other things, blurring and tarnishment.
The summary judgement motion made by Haute Diggity Dog was approved by the district court. The Louis Vuitton Malletier appealed.
Trademark Dilution gives the owner of a well-known trademark the right to prevent others from using the mark in a way that would decrease its distinctiveness.
ISSUE:
Does trademark dilution by blurring occur under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 where a famous and distinctive mark is parodied, but the mark is only mimicked and not actually used?
HELD:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Vuitton mark is strong and no one would think it was being used on the dog toys, so it does amount to infringement or dilution.
Similarly, under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, fair use by parody is allowed since it does not impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark.
To be a parody, for trademark purposes, the product must convey that it is the original but also that it is not the original, it is only a parody for amusement.
The toy was obviously irreverent and an intentional representation of the handbag, but there was no doubt that it was not an image of the mark created by the maker.
There would be no confusion between genuine products and the chew toys.
Trademark dilution by blurring does not occur under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 where a famous and distinctive mark is parodied, but the mark is only mimicked and not actually used.