Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., Docket No. 04-4941-Cv

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff had protectable mark consisting of color and design, considered together, on a handbag
• describing the mark at issue as “consisting of styled shapes and letters— the traditional Toile mark combined with the 33 Murakami colors”
• requiring district court to reconsider its determination that marks are not similar simply because the marks “LV” and “DB” are not identical
• reversing district court specifically on similarity factor for erroneously finding that marks were “not confusingly similar”
• distinguishing the federal dilution standard, which \requires a showing of actual dilution\ from the New York standard, which only \requires a showing of a mere likelihood of dilution\
• distinguishing the federal dilution standard, which “requires a showing of actual dilution” from the New York standard, which only “requires a showing of a mere likelihood of dilution.” (quotations and citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).