## Facts

- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. (LVM) owned U.S. trademark registrations for LOUIS VUITTON, the LV monogram, and a repeating “Monogram Canvas” design, and held a copyright in a later multicolor monogram design.
- LVM sold high-priced luxury luggage, handbags, and accessories, and did not manufacture dog toys.
- Haute Diggity Dog, LLC sold pet products that parody high-end brands, including “Chewy Vuiton” dog chew toys shaped like small handbags.
- The toys used the words “Chewy Vuiton,” a “CV” monogram, and design elements that evoked (but did not exactly copy) LVM’s marks and multicolor look.
- The toys were sold primarily through pet-oriented outlets for about $20.
- LVM sued for trademark infringement and related unfair competition, dilution under the TDRA, copyright infringement, and related claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Haute Diggity Dog on all claims, treating the products as a successful parody.
- LVM appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the “Chewy Vuiton” products created a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation, constituting trademark infringement and related unfair competition.
2. Whether the parody use diluted LVM’s famous marks by blurring or tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006.
3. Whether the toys infringed LVM’s copyright in its multicolor monogram design.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Haute Diggity Dog on all claims.
- On infringement, the court held there was no likelihood of confusion because the products functioned as an obvious parody and differed materially in product type, price, and marketing context.
- On dilution, the court rejected a categorical parody exemption under the TDRA but held LVM failed to show blurring or tarnishment on this record.
- On copyright, the court held the toys did not infringe because the design elements were imitative but not exact, and were altered and used in a humorous context.

## Legal Principles

- Parody in trademark cases must both call the famous mark to mind and simultaneously signal that it is not the original; a successful parody can reduce the likelihood of confusion, though it is not a complete defense by itself.
- Likelihood of confusion analysis remains factor-based; differences in goods, price, and channels of trade, and the absence of meaningful evidence of actual confusion, can defeat an infringement claim even where a parody intentionally evokes the senior mark.
- Under the TDRA, dilution by blurring requires a similarity-based association that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark; intent to create an association for humor and evidence that consumers “get the joke” do not, without more, establish impairment.
- Parody is not automatically excluded from TDRA liability, but it may be relevant to whether any association actually diminishes distinctiveness or harms reputation.
- Dilution by tarnishment requires proof that the junior use is likely to harm the famous mark’s reputation (for example, by association with shoddy goods or unsavory contexts); speculation is insufficient.
- Copyright infringement requires actionable copying of protectable expression; non-exact, modified design elements used in a transformed comedic context may not constitute infringement on the record at summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that “Chewy Vuiton” dog-toy products were an obvious parody that was unlikely to confuse consumers, and that LVM failed to prove dilution by blurring or tarnishment under the TDRA or infringement of its multicolor design copyright, warranting judgment for the defendant.


Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007)