Reference no: EM132252450
The Hangover Part II” has to go to court yet again. As incongruous as it seems, the movie is a hotbed of intellectual property issues. Last summer, Warner Brothers settled a lawsuit brought by the tattoo artist who did Mike Tyson’s facial tattoo that was then replicated on a character in the movie. Now, Louis Vuitton has filed suit in federal court for trademark infringement of its famous bags.
The ne’er-do-well character played by Zach Galifianakis has coined a pop-culture phrase by warning his fellow imbibers when they touch his Louis Vuitton bag, “Careful, that is a Louis Vuitton.”
The lawsuit seeks to have the trademark bag excised from the film as well as a share of the movie’s profits. The company seems most irritated because it alleges that the bag used in the movie is a knock-off.
Louis Vuitton is very aggressive in enforcing its trademark rights and has brought suit against artists who have used the signature handbags and luggage in their paintings. In one such case, the company did not fare well against the artist because the court held that such use in a work of art was not infringement. The company not only lost the suit against the artist but was required to pay the court costs in the case. The company exercises great control over its image and the aristocratic appeal of its bags and luggage.
The underlying question is one of artistic license and the use of trademarks in commercial works that constitute art. Stopping trademark usage in films has proven difficult. Wham-o, the makers of Slip ‘N Slide filed suit against Paramount Pictures for its use of the product in “DIckie Roberts: Child Star.” The use depicted in the film did not follow the product’s instructions and warnings so the company was concerned about the possible impact of the film on consumer use of the product. Still, the court refused to have the scene excised and went with the protection of the artistic work and commentary.
A Wall Street Journal writer (Erik Felten, "Careful, That's Not a Louis Vuitton," December 30, 2011) has suggested that Louis Vuitton capitalize on the movie’s use of the product by trademarking the phrase, ‘Careful, that’s a Louis Vuitton,” and use it in its marketing. Then the worry would be whether Warner Brothers would have an action against Louis Vuitton for using a line from its movie.
Discussion Starters
1. What is the issue in the use of trademarked products in artistic works?
2. Why is Louis Vuitton so concerned about the use of its products in a film such as “The Hangover Part II”?