Louis Vuitton Sues Charity

Apr 28, 2008 @ 12:00pm

We totally support Louis Vuitton in its quest to stop all fake-making "inspired" by their designs, but their most recent lawsuit is a little hard to swallow -

LV has sued a student artist, Nadia Plesner, over her "Simple Living" campaign, a fundraiser that benefits the Divest for Darfur organization.

Plesner drew an image of a Darfur victim holding a teacup style dog and toting an LV-inspired bag, to prove that a Paris Hilton-centric image would get more media attention than real-life Darfur victims. She was right, and has been raising money for the cause by putting her drawing on t-shirts and posters.

Except LV isn't exactly happy about it - even though 100% of Plesner's profits have been going straight to Darfur victims, Louis Vuitton is suing her for around $22,000 per day that she continues her campaign - apparently they think the design, though it doesn't include an exact copy of the Murakami pattern, infringes on their intellectual property rights.

We understand why Louis Vuitton might not want what is clearly meant to represent their most recognized accessory hanging off the arm of an emaciated child victim, but, really? Suing a charity?

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 12:21PM

Just because it's for charity doesn't mean people can infringe upon copyrights. I'm not a designer, but if I were, I'd still fight to maintain control over my property -- even if it meant telling a charity they didn't ask permission to use my design. That the infringer is doing it for a "good" reason is irrelevant -- it's like saying it's okay for someone to steal because they're using the money to pay for a family member's medication or something.

The artist could have drawn a more generic, but still obviously high-end bag to get the point across. And I'm not anti-charity at all, despite how this post may sound. I'm just siding with the designer here.

posted by christeenuh

Apr 28, 2008 12:30PM

I think its a little over the top. I understand that they may not feel that its okay to put an image that resembles their product on a t-shirt, but at the same time it seems very self absorbed of LV. They produce a product that is for people who will never have to live the kind of poverity that the people benefitting from the charity endure.

Its a little 'let them eat cake'-ish.

posted by FWD

Apr 28, 2008 12:40PM

I suspect LV will get negative publicity over this, but part of copyright law is that a company has to defend its trademark against every possible perceived infraction, whether it's by a competitor, a charity, or just no big deal. If a company lets even a minor one go by, it can lose its trademark altogether.

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 12:41PM

I think Louis Vuitton should focus on getting rid of the Chinatown copies, not on taking money from Darfur victims. This makes me want to throw my Murakami bag out the window!

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 12:45PM

I think those Louis Vouitton bags are pretty awful in general but this "let's-sue-a-good-cause" lawsuit isn't doing much to change my opinion. I now know I'll never buy one of their tacky bags. There were so many less tacky ways they could have handled this situation. It's really quite disgusting.

posted by HeatherChandler

Apr 28, 2008 12:46PM

LVMH is well within their right to sue. An image like this, even if it is for a good cause, only hurts their brand and therefore affecting their bottom line. They really don't want any potentional or current customers to equate Louis Vuitton with emaciated children.

posted by zapatosnuevos

Apr 28, 2008 12:52PM

The thing is though, legally speaking, they will lose no question. She was using the design for artistic purposes and social commentary. That's like saying someone can't take a picture of someone carrying a LV bag and use it as art without being sued. They have as much right to sue as Paris Hilton... which is none.

Sucks that the poor girl will have to get a lawyer though.

posted by alfie

Apr 28, 2008 2:11PM

FWD is right ...

but I must say this image really has the power to make someone stand up and pay attention (me).

Appreciate the posting.

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 2:17PM

This is protected by satire. You can use copyright protected material to make commentary. LV is going to lose this one--but having worked for similar large companies, they know that. But they also know that most people they threaten with legal action will back down because it is so expensive to defend it all the way to court. Sucks.

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 2:50PM

LV is not well within its legal right. this is a frivolous lawsuit and they should be sanctioned. they're just trying to bully her out of doing something she is legally allowed to do. It's not just art and social commentary, which does protect it, but it's also not even a fake bag. crazy.

posted by bastylefilegirl

Apr 28, 2008 2:50PM

I get LV's stance anyone looking at it would obviously assume "LV" when seeing it however, instead of suing them it may be an opportunity for LV to do something positive for Darfur by backing the project which could boost sales instead of hurting them. I also agree is this the worst infridgment? How about the hair/nailshops that a distrubing knockoffs at a headspinning rate!

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 2:54PM

This story sums up the capitalist evil. Seriously, I don't get it why everyone here seems to forget that LVMH is really just another big, big, big multinational corporate, they just happen to make tacky bags as opposed to Coke or Nike. And FWD (along with some of the other comments on here) are totally wrong & clearly not familiar with copyright law. Under US copyright laws, they will lose this--which makes this whole thing even uglier, the fact that they sued this girl just to harass her (their lawyers have got to know that they can't win). and yes, i'm a lawyer.

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 4:06PM

For everyone chalking this up to lame Louis that many fashionistas wouldn't be caught dead holding, don't forget that LVMH probably owns several your favorite brands ... the darling of this site, Marc Jacobs, for one. They have a massive legal department writing cease and desist letters to half the fashion world right now!

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 4:12PM

LVMH needs to accept that the murakami bag (esp. the knock off) has become an alternate icon in itself.

rather than trying to keep their luxury brand from seeming "common" or worse, "tacky" (in the words of an above commentor) they should MOVE ON... mj does such a good job with pushing the brand in new directions--- i don't see why the corporate overlords are still clutching that old printed leather....

posted by FWD

Apr 28, 2008 4:31PM

I didn't say LV would win or that they should, just that they were obligated to try. And it turns out I was totally wrong. I checked with an actual lawyer friend who clarified that so-called "genericide" doesn't apply to copyright, only trademarks. Earlier, I didn't understand the difference.

So I was wrong and it sounds like LV has no actual legal obligation to sue in this case, which makes me feel a lot better about the whole thing (and a lot worse about LV).

The shirt is provocative and apparently effective. I hope this at least generates the attention for Darfur that Plesner said she was going for.

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 5:27PM

LV should not be suing a charity for money but rather petitioning for a court order to halt use of their trademark. Then they should make a large donation. xoxo boredlawstudnt

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 6:52PM

"They really don't want any potentional or current customers to equate Louis Vuitton with emaciated children."

What, like models?

but seriously, HeatherChandler, I love your posting name!

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 7:34PM

i'm so buying into this project...

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 7:36PM

LV should have simply asked for an injunction and perhaps nominal damages. The fact that it has a specified $22,000/day damage ask will give it bad publicity. More than the actual copyright infringement, the issue is likely that the painting/portrait badly affects their image and will hurt their sales. After all, luxury goods are all about brand-names and its value. Regardless of the actual resolution of the legal issue, LV just kicked itself in the rear through this suit and the damage ask.

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 8:13PM

12:21,
how much more generic can you get? her so called LV design is as much, if not more generic than the thousands of bags that are sold in walmarts and kmarts. do see LV going after them? and why not go after the people on ebay or other places that try to pass off fakes as the real thing? she's not using their "image" to make herself richer, she's using a generic "like-ness" that stands for wealth and extravegance- isn't that what the lV campaignes have always been about- over the top extravegance? isn't that why they put their logo all over the freaking bag? because their initial are a type of status symbol? she's using her art to make the world better, which is more than a lot of people can say for themselves and if LV was smart enough, they would jump on that bandwagon and use their profits for some good rather than waste money on making lawyers rich and the "little" people even more little.

posted by guest

Apr 28, 2008 9:29PM

It is sad that using the kid takes an awful lot away from her well intentioned message.
Louis Vuitton is not responsible for what is happening in Darfur. She just got herself into a whole pile of trouble taking on LVMH. Wow!
If you wish to help in Darfur, go here http://www.savedarfur.org
Last week, the United Nations World Food Program announced that it will cut half its food supplies to the people of Darfur because of a lack of funds and relentless attacks on its convoys.

posted by enicke_

Apr 29, 2008 2:50AM

I find the Louis Vuitton handbags very tacky. Too gotty. What kind of people use them? PEople like PAris Hilton, not so classy...

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 7:33AM

suing a charity is wrong

posted by guest

Apr 29, 2008 2:58PM

disappointing that people are getting riled up over property rights and suing and what have you when the message that should have hit home is that there are children starving in this world, and greedy conglomerates are able to charge $3,000+ for a BAG to line their greedy pockets and then get upset when their image is used for something good.

posted by guest

Apr 30, 2008 12:48AM

How else is one to satirize people, places, or things except by making things that look conspicuously like the original?

Plus, since lv is picking on the indiviual artist and not any of the groups she's associated with, they're clearly picking her out and using intimidation tactics to prevent bad publicity. But I think this lawsuit is bad publicity enough for them.

Seriously, let it go.

posted by guest

May 09, 2008 9:01AM

I can understand if LV is suing any other copycat but a charity/fundraiser which 100% of the profits goes to charity? The money to pay the LV's lawyer? Instead of helping the fundraiser to raise the money for Darfur, some money goes to the lawyer of some big company who thought they are doing right things by suing some charity. Plus they are ASKING money from this fundraiser. What the hell is going on?

LV, it really make you look bad... really really bad...

posted by guest

May 10, 2008 2:11AM

To respond to the previous post, and to correct the initial article - it's 30% of the profits that go to charity, not 100%.

Furthermore, LV also wrote the artist an initial letter asking her to discontinue using the image (which clearly is an infringement of their intellectual property). LV also wrote in their letter to her that they applauded her efforts for the cause, and do consider it a worthy cause. The artist chose to write back and say that she would not discontinue the use of the image.

I find it ridiculous that the artist is claiming that she is standing up for artistic freedom, when she is doing so by copying LV's artistic design.