Louis Vuitton

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

By Tyler Baker

Luxury brand titan Louis Vuitton recently achieved a significant victory over counterfeiting of its designer products. In an action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Louis Vuitton sued the Eisenhauer Road Flea Market, its owner, Bruce L. Gore, and its manager, Patricia D. Walker, for contributory trademark infringement, alleging that the defendants had failed to prevent vendors from selling fake Louis Vuitton goods at the flea market. See Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Eisenhauer Road Flea Market, Inc., No. SA-11-CA-124 (W.D. Tex.). Louis Vuitton stated that counterfeit “LV” products were abundant at the flea market and that Louis Vuitton had given Gore and Walker sufficient opportunities to discipline their vendors that engaged in phony sales. Louis Vuitton alleged, notwithstanding this notice, that Gore and Walker chose to be “willfully blind” to such infringing activity. Gore testified that he warned market tenants not to sell counterfeit goods, only to have those vendors nonetheless engage in distribution of bogus items after they said they would not.

On January 12, 2012, a unanimous jury found in favor of Louis Vuitton, deciding that nine trademarks were infringed, and awarded $400,000 for each mark. On January 31, U.S. District Court Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth entered a judgment in accordance with the jury verdict which was, if nothing else, comprehensive in its scope of remedying the situation for the present and future. In addition to finding the defendants jointly and severally liable for $3.6 million in compensatory damages, the judgment also permanently enjoined the defendants from further acts of contributory trademark infringement with respect to the Louis Vuitton trademarks. Specifically, the defendants were ordered not to lease space to tenants whom the defendants know, have reason to know, or have been presented with credible evidence that are selling or distributing products bearing counterfeit Louis Vuitton trademarks. The defendants themselves also were banned from selling Louis Vuitton counterfeits and engaging in any conduct which would contribute, directly or indirectly, to counterfeiting of Louis Vuitton trademarks by flea market tenants. The Court’s order went further, requiring the defendants or their agents to conduct periodic inspections of the booths maintained by flea market tenants to guard against Louis Vuitton counterfeits, and to post signs at each market entrance warning lessees and the public that the tenants were not authorized to sell Louis Vuitton merchandise, and that doing so was a criminal offense. The judge also required that all future lease agreements for the flea market expressly prohibit the sale of Louis Vuitton counterfeits, and permitted Louis Vuitton representatives or agents to conduct unannounced random inspections during normal flea market business hours to search for Louis Vuitton fakes.

In response to the Court’s order, the flea market accused Louis Vuitton of forcing the flea market to do the luxury brand’s job, i.e., enforcement of Louis Vuitton trademarks, and that the company had other means by which to police counterfeiting, e.g., by alerting law enforcement agencies or by pursuing the vendors directly in civil or criminal court. Louis Vuitton responded that the flea market was infested with counterfeit merchandise and that the defendants simply turned a “blind eye” to the counterfeits.

This case should send a powerful message to commercial landlords of flea markets who suspect or have been warned that phony designer merchandise is being sold on their premises. While Louis Vuitton noted that suing the flea market was an extreme measure taken only once such measures are deemed necessary, this case should serve as a warning that established luxury brands, such as Louis Vuitton, police their marks vigilantly against contributory infringement, whether it be in the physical world or cyberspace.

Louis Vuitton already secured an important victory against online contributory trademark infringement where the defendant provided web-hosting for numerous websites that sold counterfeit Louis Vuitton products. See Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011). In Akanoc, Louis Vuitton sued the defendant for contributory trademark and copyright infringement and counterfeiting after the defendant failed to end service for the infringing sites, despite eighteen notices of infringement from Louis Vuitton. The trial and appellate courts found the defendant liable for contributory copyright and trademark infringement because of the way it had guided web users to the infringing sites and exercised direct control over and monitored the websites. The Akanoc case is analogous to the Eisenhauer Road Flea Market case in that both cases demonstrate that neither the real world nor the world wide web are safe havens for trademark infringement.

By Alona G. Metz

In the recent landmark case of Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011),[1] the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a web-hosting company that owned and operated servers was liable for contributory copyright and trademark infringement when it failed to take steps to curtail alleged infringement committed by Chinese websites that used its servers. Louis Vuitton sued Akanoc Solutions, Inc. (“Akanoc”), Managed Solutions Group, Inc. (“MSG”), and Steven Chen (the owner of both companies) for contributory copyright and trademark infringement under the Copyright and Lanham Acts, respectively. MSG leased servers, bandwidth, and IP addresses to other companies, such as Akanoc, who then operated the servers and otherwise ran the business. Louis Vuitton alleged that some of Akanoc’s China-based customers directly infringed on Louis Vuitton’s trademarks and copyrights. Louis Vuitton sent the defendants eighteen Notices of Infringement documenting the infringements occurring on websites hosted by defendants, yet the defendants were unable to identify any action taken in response to the notices sent by Louis Vuitton and the websites continued to operate. Louis Vuitton alleged that defendants had actual knowledge of the website’s activities, that defendants knowingly avoided learning of the full extent of infringing activities, and that defendants knowingly enabled the infringing conduct by hosting the websites and permitting them to display the counterfeit products.

A jury found that all three defendants were liable for willful contributory trademark infringement and willful copyright infringement. It awarded statutory damages on both claims for each of the three defendants. The trial court set aside the verdict as to MSG because there was no evidence that MSG did anything other than own and lease the hardware operated by Akanoc and Chen. However, it entered judgment against Chen and Akanoc and awarded statutory damages against each of them.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed as to the issue of the defendants’ liability, but reduced the statutory damages award by half because a plaintiff can only recover one set of statutory damages where two defendants are jointly and severally liable. On the issue of liability, several of the Court’s observations in the opinion are noteworthy: First, with regard to the contributory trademark infringement claim, the Court noted that “websites are not ethereal; while they exist, virtually, in cyberspace, they would not exist at all without physical roots in servers and internet services. . . . Appellants had direct control over the ‘master switch’ that kept websites online and available.” Therefore, the servers themselves, as distinct from the infringing websites, were a “means of infringement” under federal trademark law. Second, with regard to both claims, the Court held that defendants’ assertion, that “contribution to infringement must be intentional for liability to arise”, was without merit. Rather, proof that defendants had actual or constructive knowledge that the users of their services were engaging in infringements or knowingly failed to prevent infringing actions is sufficient. Third, with regard to the contributory copyright infringement claim, the Court maintained that, as is the case with trademark law, “intent may be imputed” because of the knowing failure to prevent infringement and “there is no question that providing direct infringers with server space” constitutes a material contribution to direct infringement because this “substantially assists” direct infringement.

Neither side has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The deadline for filing is January 17, 2012. Given that this is an important precedent for third party liability for copyright and trademark infringement, it remains to be seen whether certiorari will be sought and what actions by web hosts will be considered sufficient to avoid liability where the hosted website is infringing.

Filed under: Apparel, Timepieces / Watches, The Fashion Statement

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Luxury Travel & Hotels, Shoes
A rare and highly sought-after piece of vintage Louis Vuitton luggage, the renowned “Malle Chaussures” shoe trunk (above) from the 1920s, is being offered for sale by London’s Pullman Gallery for $68,500. The trunk “embodies the glamour and sophistication of a more elegant era, when such items were de rigeur for wealthy travelers.” Featuring the iconic LV monogram on its canvas-upholstered frame, the trunk is fully outfitted for most meticulous fashion plate. It contains compartments for 30 pairs of shoes in individual shoe boxes with ancillary drawers and trays for a shoe-cleaning kit. Each of the padded drawers features a leather pull tab and nameplate. The trunk easily rivals the examples to be found in Vuitton’s own archives, and is nearly identical to one featured in the amazing Louis Vuitton: 100 Legendary Trunks book we wrote about in January.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Luxury Shopping

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Filed under: Luxury Cars & Autos, Architecture & Design
Jaguar’s amazing C-X75 hybrid concept car, which my colleague David Kiley first wrote about last September, has just won the Louis Vuitton Classic Concept Award 2010 by a panel of luminaries from the worlds of design, fashion and luxury in Paris. “Ian Callum, Jaguar’s Design Director, and his team have achieved not only a beautiful design in clothing a world-premiere and mouth-watering technology, but also a true Jaguar, projecting the brand’s DNA into the future without an ounce of nostalgia,” said Christian Philippsen, inaugurator of the prize. The gas-electric hybrid two-seater is capable of a top speed of 205 miles per hour, and up to 68 miles of all-electric operation. It’s powered by four 195-horsepower electric motors, one in each wheel, giving the vehicle an all-wheel drive system with torque-vectoring controls to distribute power as needed.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 3 seconds to load.