Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> FORTUNE Legal Pad
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Legal Commentary
: FORTUNE Legal PadLouis Vuitton loses dog chew-toy case — again
Last week, in a case that I — if few others — have been following with rapt attention, a federal appeals court unanimously affirmed on appeal a trial court ruling throwing out Louis Vuitton Malletier’s trademark infringement suit against a “Chewy Vuiton” plush toy manufactured by Haute Diggity Dog. (For earlier post on the case, see here.)
Louis Vuitton, which is a unit of LVMH (LVM), brought the case to enjoin sale of a small polyester chew-toy, shaped roughly like a handbag, that bears a monogram that parodies the French luxury goods retailer’s famous “monogram canvas mark.” The Chewy Vuiton toys are decorated with geometric doo-dads that mimic Louis Vuitton’s four-pointed-star designs, and feature an interlocking CV logo in place of the famous interlocking LV logo. Nevertheless, the court found that consumers were unlikely to think that the inexpensive dog toys, which are sold in pet shops or online, were made by the French luxury house, which sells its monogrammed handbags (for between $995 and $4,500) only from licensed Louis Vuitton stores or toney department stores boutiques.
“The furry little ‘Chewy Vuiton’ imitation, as something to be chewed by a dog, pokes fun at the elegance and expensiveness of a LOUIS VUITTON handbag, which must not be chewed by a dog,” wrote Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer. His 24-page ruling is available here.
Like the trial judge below, the court cited as authority a landmark (in my book, at least) 2002 precedent in which a Manhattan federal judge rebuffed Tommy Hilfiger’s trademark suit against a novelty “pet perfume” called “Timmy Holedigger.”
The court also rejected Louis Vuitton’s claim that the toy might constitute “trademark dilution,” blurring, or tarnishment — slightly murkier legal concepts. The luxury house had based these challenges in part on alleged concerns that the toy might cause certain dogs to choke, leading distraught owners to think less of Louis Vuitton as a result. “There is no record support, however, that any dog has choked on a pet chew toy, such as a ‘Chewy Vuiton’ toy,” wrote Judge Niemeyer, “or that there is any basis from which to conclude that a dog would likely choke on such a toy.”
Haute Diggity Dog, which is based in Las Vegas, Nevada, also makes parody chew toys called Chewnel No. 5 (Chanel No. 5), Furcedes (Mercedes), Jimmy Chew (Jimmy Choo), Dog Perignonn (Dom Perignon), Sniffany & Co. (Tiffany & Co.), and Dogior (Dior).

Full post as published by FORTUNE Legal Pad on November 19, 2007 (boomark / email).
St. Louis Car Accident - St. Louis Auto Accident, St. Louis Car Accident Lawyer
St. Louis Car Accident alleging liability for personal injuries caused by car accidents in St. Louis, Missouri.
St. Louis Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by car, truck, bus, motorcycle or other St. Louis vehicle accidents.
St. Louis Truck Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a truck accident in St. Louis, Missouri.
St. Louis Motorcycle Accident
alleging liability for personal injuries caused by a motorcycle accident in St. Louis, Missouri.
Social Security Loses Class Action, Will Pay $500 Million in Benefits
Social Security Loses Class Action, Will Pay $500 Million in Benefits
Philip Morris
Loses Appeal, Will Pay Millions

Did French Retailers Win Hometown Verdict Against eBay
Google Loses a Trademark Case in France
Right To Parody Trademarks Endorsed By Court Under New Law
"I think this lawsuit has given my campaign more attention than I ever would have gotten without it"
Luis Vuitton Upset about Use of Trademarked Goods in Darfur Awareness Campaign









