Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (2007)
Parody vs trademark dilution (TDRA): why “Chewy Vuiton” did not blur or tarnish the LV mark.
Quick Summary
Louis Vuitton (LV) sued a dog-toy maker that sold “Chewy Vuiton” toys. The toys copied LV’s style for a joke. The court said this was a parody, not dilution or infringement under the TDRA.
Why? The parody signaled the original brand but also made clear it was not the original. Consumers would not think LV made dog toys. The mark’s distinctiveness was not harmed.
Issues
- Does trademark dilution by blurring occur when a famous mark is parodied but not used as a source identifier?
Rules
- Trademark dilution lets owners stop uses that lessen a famous mark’s distinctiveness.
- Under the TDRA, a parody that only mimics the mark and signals it is a joke will generally not blur or tarnish the mark.
Facts (Timeline)
Citation: 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)
Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)
Appellant (Louis Vuitton)
- Famous marks were diluted by blurring and tarnishment.
- Look-alike patterns risked confusion and loss of distinctiveness.
- Parody defense should not protect a commercial product.
Respondent (Haute Diggity Dog)
- This is an obvious parody—a joke product, not a source identifier.
- Consumers won’t think LV makes cheap dog toys—no confusion.
- Under the TDRA, parody that signals it is not the original is allowed.
Judgment
Held: No dilution and no infringement. The toys parodied LV’s marks and did not impair their distinctiveness. Buyers would not believe LV made “Chewy Vuiton.”
- Parody test: Must evoke the original and signal it is not the original.
- Blurring/Tarnishment: Not shown on these facts; distinctiveness remained strong.
- Confusion: Low-cost dog toys vs luxury handbags—no likely confusion.
Ratio
Trademark parody that mimics a famous mark to make a joke—while clearly not using it as a source identifier—does not amount to dilution by blurring under the TDRA.
Why It Matters
- Confirms parody as a shield against overbroad dilution claims.
- Shows courts weigh context, product type, and audience perception.
- Helps brands and creators draw the line between joke and misuse.
Key Takeaways
Must point to the brand and also say “not the brand.”
Distinctiveness stays intact when the joke is obvious.
Different price, channel, and vibe reduce confusion risk.
Dilution needs real impairment, not just a playful nod.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “JOKE” — Just a parody · Obvious it’s not LV · Keep distinctiveness · Evokes then distances.
- Evoke: Let buyers recognize the famous brand.
- Distance: Make it clear this is a joke, not the source.
- Assess: Check TDRA factors—no real blurring or tarnishment.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does a parody product like “Chewy Vuiton” dilute LV’s famous marks under the TDRA?
Rule
Dilution requires impairment of distinctiveness; parody is recognized and can be fair under the TDRA.
Application
Toy’s design both referenced and mocked LV; audience would not assume LV made it; distinctiveness stayed strong.
Conclusion
No dilution or infringement. Parody protected; summary judgment for the toy maker affirmed.
Glossary
- Trademark Dilution
- Harm to a famous mark’s distinctiveness or reputation, even without confusion.
- Blurring
- Weakening a mark’s unique link to one source.
- Tarnishment
- Hurting a mark’s reputation by linking it with something unsavory.
- Parody
- A humorous reference that evokes a brand but also says “this is not the brand.”
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now