Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the application of likelihood-of-confusion factors “depend[s] to a great extent on whether its products and marks are successful parodies”
• noting that parties agree that “LOUIS VUITTON” marks are famous under the Lanham Act
• holding “Chewy Vui-ton” dog toys not to infringe on the venerable handbag maker’s trademark
• permitting parodie use where the parody marketed its products to a significantly different class of consumers than the famous mark
• finding no likelihood of dilution by blurring where defendant’s “Chewy Vuiton” dog toy parodied plaintiffs marks and caused an increase in plaintiffs brand recognition
• applying the Pizzeria Uno factors as articulated in Pizzeria Uno Corp. v Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir. 1984)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).