CRM/LAW C101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Dog Toy, Robin Thicke, Ice Ice Baby
6 May 2019
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Q: what is a defense offered to a claim for dilution in the case louis vuitton v. haute. Do not want to lose sense of humor when living in democratic society where free expression is the norm. Blurring is a subset of dilution claim -> ability of famous brand to maintain the distinctiveness & grandeur of its mark. Lv is a very exclusive & haughty brand. Distinctiveness -> public recognition of a brand & attribution to a single source. To win a claim for dilution, plaintiff must show: Lv is very famous brand with very distinctive mark. Defendant is using a mark they allege is diluting it. Similarity between marks gives rise to association. Association is likely to impair the famous mark. Whole point of the dog toy is to associate with lv but in parody. Question of whether there is potential to impair famous mark.
