LV lost again!
I have to say that LV's legal department is really not good, Apple can win the pear, LV actually can't move a similar trademark?
So when you see this LOGO, do you think it's familiar?
Familiar serif fonts, as well as superimposed capital letter design forms, who doesn't look confused? Isn't this LV's "brother"?!
In fact, this is a trademark applied for by a person named Aina Yang, and the scope of application is in the field of clothing. To tell the truth, friends who know LV, see this LOGO will think of it, not to mention LV Buddha-figures.
#01
"LV" sued "LN!" ”
No, lv filed an objection application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office.
The LV side said that the appearance of the trademark registered by Aina Yang is not only similar to the "LV" brand LOGO, but also involves the range of products for clothing, belt buckles, zippers and buttons, which may mislead consumers.
Even at the bottom of the combination of letters "L" and "N", there is also the word "LOVES VITTORIO", and the combination of the first letters is "LV", which is a coincidence, which is really too coincidental.
However, the EUIPO side stated that the similarity between the two was largely due to the fact that they both "used the letter 'L' in italics and juxtaposed the two letters". But "simply using a similar style, but with different logo elements, is not enough to lead the public to believe that the disputed goods come from the same or associated business".
In summary, LV was finally rejected!
For this result, some industry insiders said that the reason for LV's defeat is likely to be due to the failure to submit any evidence that Aina Yang's trademark application will cause damage to the brand's reputation before the deadline, and if it can prove the importance of the "LV" logo to the brand reputation, and the evidence that Aina Yang may use the similar trademark for unfair competition, it may be able to win back a round.
As for whether LV will continue to appeal in the future, we can only be a melon eater.
#02
LV's road to rights protection "bumpy"
Prior to this incident, LV also had the experience of losing many infringement cases.
First of all, it is well known that the brown-black checkerboard is one of lv's classic styles.
In 2020, LV discovered a Japanese company called "Kobe Abacus Shop", and the pattern on the cloth bag also adopted the element design of this checkerboard.
LV believed that the store had infringed on its checkerboard trademark, so it sued the Kobe Abacus Store.
However, the court ultimately gave the result that although LV's checkerboard pattern was very representative, the court held that LV's claims were not within the validity of LV's trademark rights.
In fact, this is because the pattern used by the Kobe bead shop is called "Ichimatsu Moi", which originated from the pattern on a ritual instrument in the Kofun period in Japan, which is the standard of ordinary Japanese families.
And this pattern is very popular in Japan, and it is very common in many costumes and accessories.
At this point, LV really engaged in a "big oolong"
In addition, LV has also sued a canvas bag company called My Other Bag. The reason is that its designers will copy LVMH's bag style directly as the pattern of canvas bags in the form of "spoof".
Designer Tara Martin said that the inspiration for this series of canvas bags came from the fact that when she went to the grocery store to buy something before, she forgot to prepare the shopping bag, so she had to stuff everything she bought into her designer bag.
After this experience, the designer said that he wanted to design a stylish and eco-friendly shopping bag, so he had the idea of printing the style of the designer bag on the canvas bag.
In the end, the court ruled that My Other Bag was clearly for humorous and bantering purposes, not to induce customers to confuse the two. So, LV lost.
In fact, judging from the above cases, the reason why LV lost the lawsuit was nothing more than that it could not prove that there was unfair competition in similar trademarks and that they were not within the scope of the validity of trademark rights. We also see that in addition to protecting the rights and interests of brands, the law is also very flexible in the face of special factors such as history, culture and creative works.
LV, lost hemp!