Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Warner Bros Sued For Pirating Louis Vuitton Trademark

Posted by Soulskill on from the snake-eating-its-own-tail dept.

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."

11 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. they will just shift the blame to some other perso by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they will just shift the blame to some other person or just pin it on a intern.

  2. The law is the law by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now, according to the usual MPAA calculations and the fact that petilions* of people will see that movie, they now must pay Louis Vuitton about 5 zetalions* dollars.

    * The MPAA and RIAA aren't the only ones who can come up with stupid numbers.

    1. Re:The law is the law by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You act as if the law applies to the Movie Studios. How naive.

    2. Re:The law is the law by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps they'll just argue that the viewers of the movie are the ones who are infringing by the act of looking at the counterfeit item, and so each moviegoer will owe LV $3,000.

      G.

  3. Re:they will just shift the blame to some other pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is always an intern. It is a little known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth were intern patsies.

  4. Meanwhile... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Warner Bros lawyers are poring over every Louis Vuitton advertisement and product, desperately looking for something to neutralize the issue. Even a stain which is vaguely in the shape of Wile E Coyote would do.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  5. Re:they will just shift the blame to some other pe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

  6. Re:curious case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:in moives and tv shows it does not work like th by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because the companies that owned the rights to those logos wouldn't pay for product placement.

  8. Re:Thats just FUD by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  9. Re:How can they tell? by AverageWindowsUser · · Score: 5, Funny

    We just got back from a week in LA; you'd be surprised how many of those bags even in Beverly Hills aren't real...

    The fun-bags aren't real there either.