On December 22, 2011, Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. following the release of The Hangover: Part II. The dispute centered around the use of a travel bag in the film, which Louis Vuitton argued was a counterfeit version of its signature Toile Monogram design. The bag, produced by Diophy, bore a striking resemblance to Louis Vuitton’s Keepall, raising concerns about consumer confusion. Louis Vuitton claimed that the film’s depiction of the bag misled consumers into believing it was an authentic Louis Vuitton product, thereby damaging the brand’s reputation. The lawsuit included claims of false designation of origin, unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and trademark dilution under New York General Business Law Section 360-l.

Background of the Case

Louis Vuitton, one of the most recognised luxury brands in the world, is renowned for its high-quality luggage, handbags, and accessories. A central part of its brand identity is the Toile Monogram, which has been a registered trademark since 1932. The distinctive monogram is closely associated with luxury, authenticity, and prestige. Given the importance of this trademark, Louis Vuitton is highly protective of its intellectual property, often engaging in aggressive legal action to protect its brand from counterfeiting and unauthorised use. This case illustrates the company’s effort to maintain control over its brand and its image, especially in the face of counterfeit goods that could confuse consumers or tarnish its reputation.

Warner Bros. and The Hangover: Part II

In The Hangover: Part II, Warner Bros. produced a comedy sequel that quickly became a commercial success. The film grossed approximately $580 million globally. In one of the film’s key scenes, a character named Alan carries a bag that closely resembles Louis Vuitton’s Keepall. The design of the bag, including the signature monogram, is nearly identical to Louis Vuitton’s trademark. However, the bag shown in the film was not made by Louis Vuitton but was a counterfeit produced by Diophy, a company known for producing knockoff versions of luxury brand items. The film also includes a line of dialogue in which Alan refers to the bag as “Lewis Vuitton,” which further hints at a connection to Louis Vuitton’s brand, despite the alteration of the name.

Louis Vuitton contended that this portrayal could confuse consumers into thinking that the bag was an authentic Louis Vuitton product or that the brand had authorised its use in the film. This confusion, the company argued, could harm its image by associating it with a low-quality counterfeit product.

Legal Claims and Defenses

Louis Vuitton’s Claims

In response to the film’s release, Louis Vuitton sent a cease-and-desist letter to Warner Bros., demanding the removal of the counterfeit bag from the film’s distribution. However, Warner Bros. continued to distribute the film, including on DVD and Blu-ray. As a result, Louis Vuitton filed a formal lawsuit. The legal claims focused on the following issues:

• False Designation of Origin (Lanham Act Section 43(a)): Louis Vuitton argued that the depiction of the counterfeit bag in the film falsely implied that it was associated with or endorsed by Louis Vuitton, which could mislead consumers about the origin and authenticity of the product.
• Unfair Competition: Louis Vuitton also claimed that the use of the bag constituted unfair competition, arguing that it caused harm to the brand’s reputation by creating confusion about the product’s authenticity.
• Trademark Dilution (New York General Business Law Section 360-l): Lastly, Louis Vuitton sought to protect its famous mark from dilution, asserting that the use of the counterfeit bag in a popular film could erode the distinctiveness of its brand and tarnish its image.

Warner Bros. Defense

Warner Bros. responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, presenting several arguments in defense of its actions:

1. First Amendment Protection: Warner Bros. argued that the use of the counterfeit bag in the film was protected by the First Amendment as a form of artistic expression. Citing the Rogers v. Grimaldi decision (1989), Warner Bros. maintained that expressive works, such as films, are generally exempt from trademark infringement claims unless the use is explicitly misleading. The company contended that the bag’s use was not misleading in a way that would violate Louis Vuitton’s trademark rights.
2. De Minimis Use: Warner Bros. also argued that the use of the Louis Vuitton trademark was de minimis, meaning that it was too minor to have any significant impact on consumer behaviour. They claimed that the bag’s inclusion in the film did not affect consumers’ purchasing decisions or confuse viewers about the bag’s authenticity.

Court’s Ruling

The Rogers Test

On 15 June 2012, the court ruled in favour of Warner Bros., granting the motion to dismiss the case. In its decision, the court applied the Rogers test, which was established in Rogers v. Grimaldi (1989). The test involves two key considerations:

• Artistic Relevance: The court examined whether the use of the trademark in the film was artistically relevant to the narrative. In this case, the court determined that the use of the Diophy bag was artistically relevant to the film’s storyline. The bag’s inclusion helped develop the character of Alan and served as part of the film’s comedic tone, which was integral to the film’s artistic expression.
• Explicitly Misleading: The court also assessed whether the use of the trademark was explicitly misleading as to the source or sponsorship of the product. The court found that the use of the bag did not explicitly suggest that Louis Vuitton had endorsed or authorized its appearance in the film. The altered name (“Lewis Vuitton”) further reduced the likelihood of consumer confusion.

Lack of Consumer Confusion

The court further emphasised that Louis Vuitton had failed to provide sufficient evidence of consumer confusion. To succeed in a trademark infringement case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the use of the mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers. In this case, the court found that there was no clear indication that consumers were misled into believing the counterfeit bag was a legitimate Louis Vuitton product. Additionally, the court ruled that the use of the bag in a non-commercial, artistic context did not meet the requirements for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

Conclusion

The ruling in Louis Vuitton v. Warner Bros. illustrates the challenge of balancing trademark protection with the right to creative expression. By applying the Rogers test, the court determined that the use of the counterfeit bag in The Hangover: Part II was artistically relevant and not explicitly misleading, protecting Warner Bros.’ right to artistic freedom.

This case highlights the difficulties luxury brands face in enforcing trademark rights when artistic works are involved. Courts require clear evidence of consumer confusion or harm before restricting creative expression, making it challenging for brands to control how their trademarks appear in films and other media. As commercial and artistic interests intersect, brand owners must recognise the legal boundaries that protect creative works, particularly when courts apply the Rogers test. While trademarks grant powerful rights, they do not provide absolute control over how a brand appears in culture, media, and entertainment.

---

Source:

casetext.com/case/louis-vuitton-mallatier-sa-v-warner-bros-entmt-inc