Slashdot Mirror
Warner Bros Sued For Pirating Louis Vuitton Trademark
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You have to love a case where Warner Brothers, copyright maximalist extraordinaire, gets sued for 'piracy,' in this case for using a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag in a recent movie. This lawsuit has been described as 'awkward' for Warner; I have to agree with that characterization. Louis Vuitton's 22-page complaint (PDF) alleges that Warner Bros. had knowledge that the bag was a knock-off, but went ahead and used it anyway. Apparently Warner Bros. takes IP rights seriously only when its own IP rights are involved."
use of trademarks representing a non genuine item, is not allowed.. that mockup of a vehicle or a boat or a secret under-volcano hideaway well now, are they branded items?
I'm sorry, but I reckon WB could have purchased a LV bag and used it without paying a penny for licensing and LV would have been delighted at the free coverage..
In this case, (yes, I actually read, er, skimmed the legal complaint) WB used knock off bags and luggage in a scene, but had a character refer to them as Louis Vuitton products. According to LV, this will create confusion in the public's mind about the knockoff's monogram vs. LV's trademarked emblems. Plus, LV had filed a complaint with WB before releasing the film to DVD and blu-ray which WB chose to ignore. So LV is seeking damages for intentional trademark violation and a couple of other infractions. Had the film not specifically mentioned LV in the dialog, there probably wouldn't have been a case.
You're not legally allowed to make advertisements for counterfeit products even if it's not your counterfeit product.
Because, of course, it's impossible to create a Slashdot name like that unless the creator is a lawyer.
No, but we know he is.
Circumcision is child abuse.
That movie had viewers???????
Um, it was only the 4th highest grossing movie in the US this year. Horrible, yes, but very popular.
No, they will say either 1) "It's not a knock-off; it's a parody." or 2) "We bought the bag, we can use it however we like."
2) I cant help but be reminded of those retarded adds at the beginning of DVDs: Buying pirated DVDs is stealing.
Buying pirated goods is stealing. Seems like as good an analogy as any, I hope someone faces some jail time for this. It seems the only fair way to proceed given the content industries attitudes and stance in these and related matters...
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
I didn't read the articles (Hey, this is Slashdot), but here goes:
Couldn't the use of a LV bag in a movie be considered fair use? And if the fact that it was a knock-off is material to the script*, that to might be 'fair use' of the right to make a knock-off prop.
If fair use doesn't apply, then how would it be possible to make a film on location someplace like NYC? You can't swing a deceased feline in that city without seeing a trademark on the side of a building. And if its not a location shoot, but a CGI recreation of a city, then the studio is effectively copying an entire scene full of trademarks.
*If its not material, then WB could sue the supplier for selling a fake to their prop department.
Have gnu, will travel.