Seattle Trademark Lawyer

The Fourth Circuit is set to consider Louis Vuitton’s appeal of its dismissed dilution claim in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, No. 06-2267. This case may become the first appellate decision to interpret the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.

Earlier this month, the Second Circuit revived Starbucks Corp.’s dilution claim against a New Hampshire coffee company based on the TDRA but did not shed light on how the new statute would be interpreted. (STL discussion of Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc. here.)

The Louis Vuitton case (which STL discussed here), involves the seller of novelty dog toys who markets a chew toy under the name “Chewy Vuiton.” Louis Vuitton calls it dilution. Haute Diggity Dog calls it parody. Applying the TDRA, the Eastern District of New York sided with the seller and dismissed Louis Vuitton’s dilution claim, which Louis Vuitton has appealed.

Earlier this month, the International Trademark Association filed an amicus brief in the case siding with Louis Vuitton. In today’s INTA Bulletin (membership required), INTA argues the district court erred in two ways. First, “the district court erred by concluding that the CHEWY VUITON line of products was a protected parody without considering language in the statute that restricts use of the parody defense where defendant’s mark is used ‘as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services,’” citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A).

Second, INTA argues the district court erred by “not considering any of the [Trademark Dilution Revision Act’s] six factors for determining whether a likelihood of dilution by blurring exists. … Courts nationwide should consider the list of factors provided by Congress to help promote consistency and uniformity among the courts — an important goal of the dilution amendments.” 

Oral argument has not yet been scheduled.