## Facts

- Louis Vuitton marketed the “Monogram Multicolore” pattern: interlocking “LV” initials and geometric motifs in multiple colors on a white or black background, developed with designer Takashi Murakami and launched in 2002.
- Louis Vuitton’s multicolore monogram was inherently distinctive and had become famous before Dooney’s challenged products entered the market.
- Dooney sold “It Bag” handbags featuring a repeating pattern of multicolored “DB” initials on a white or black background.
- Louis Vuitton alleged that Dooney copied the overall look of the multicolore monogram and brought federal claims for trademark infringement and dilution, plus New York claims for infringement, unfair competition, and dilution.
- After discovery, Dooney moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims.

## Issues

1. Whether Dooney’s “DB” monogram created a likelihood of consumer confusion with Louis Vuitton’s multicolore monogram under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether Dooney’s design diluted Louis Vuitton’s famous mark (by blurring or tarnishment) under federal and New York law, including whether the marks were sufficiently similar and whether dilution was shown.
3. Whether New York claims for infringement and unfair competition could proceed absent likely confusion.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted to Dooney on all federal and state claims.
- The court found no likelihood of confusion because the designs were similar only at a high level of generality and conveyed different overall commercial impressions.
- The court found Louis Vuitton failed to prove actionable dilution because the marks were not substantially similar and the record did not show actual dilution.
- The New York infringement, unfair competition, and dilution claims were dismissed for the same core reasons (no likely confusion and no sufficient similarity/dilution).

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion is assessed by considering the mark’s overall impression in marketplace conditions, not merely by abstract similarities or side-by-side comparison.
- Expensive branded goods and purchaser care may weigh against likely confusion where source-identifying elements differ.
- Dilution of a famous mark requires a high degree of similarity; mental association alone is insufficient.
- Under the applied federal dilution standard, absence of evidence that the junior use lessened the senior mark’s distinctiveness supports judgment for the defendant.
- New York infringement and unfair competition claims generally track the federal likelihood-of-confusion framework; without likely confusion, those claims typically fail.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for Dooney, holding that its multicolored “DB” monogram bags were not likely to confuse consumers and were not sufficiently similar to Louis Vuitton’s famous multicolore monogram to support federal or state dilution, requiring dismissal of all related state-law claims as well.


Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)