<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n On the issue of infringement the Second Circuit said that whether it reviewed the\u00a0district\u00a0court\u2019s findings as to each Polaroid<\/em> factor deferentially or de novo<\/em> (avoiding deciding which was corrrect), \u00a0“we reach the same conclusion.” \u00a0Obvious differences in MOB\u2019s mimicking of\u00a0LV\u2019s mark, the lack of market proximity between the products at issue, and minimal, and unconvincing evidence of consumer confusion compelled a judgment in favor of MOB.<\/p>\n On the issue \u00a0on dilution, the Second Circuit observed\u00a0a\u00a0parody must convey two simultaneous\u2014and contradictory\u2014messages: that it\u00a0is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. \u00a0The Second Circuit found that this is precisely what MOB did: “At the same time that they mimic LV\u2019s designs and\u00a0handbags in a way that is recognizable, they do so as a drawing on a product that is such\u00a0a conscious departure from LV\u2019s image of luxury\u2014in combination with the slogan \u201cMy\u00a0other bag\u201d\u2014as to convey that MOB\u2019s tote bags are not LV handbags.”<\/p>\n Finally, on the issue of copyright infringement, the Second Circuit found that MOB\u2019s parodic use of LV\u2019s designs produces a \u201cnew expression [and] message\u201d\u00a0that constitutes a non-infringing transformative use.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In\u00a0Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., [16-241-cv] (December 22, 2016), the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for My Other Bag that its parody bag did not infringe or dilute Louis Vuitton’s trademark and trade dress rights or … Continue reading ![\"myotherbag2\"](\"https:\/\/trademarks.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/MyOtherBag2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n