Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 26 PageID# 1
`Alexandria Division
`M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
`This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s and
`Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. This “dog of a
`case” gave the Court a great amount of facts to chew upon and
`applicable law to sniff out. Nonetheless, having thoroughly
`gnawed through the record, this Court finds that no material
`dispute of fact remains, and summary judgment is appropriate on
`all counts. For the following reasons, the Court will deny
`Plaintiff’s motion and grant Defendants’ motion.
`I. Background
`Plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., (“LVM”) is a
`manufacturer of luxury consumer goods, including luggage and
`handbags. In 1896, LVM created a Monogram Canvas Pattern Design
`mark and trade dress, which includes, inter alia, an entwined L
`and V monogram with three motifs and a four pointed star, and is
`used to identify its products. In 2002, Vuitton introduced a new
`signature design in collaboration with Japanese designer Takashi

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 26 PageID# 2
`Murakami. LVM manufactures a limited number of high-end pet
`products, such as leashes and collars that range in price from
`$250 to $1600.
`Plaintiff filed this action on March 24, 2006 against
`Defendants Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (“HDD”), Victoria Dauernheim,
`and Woofies, LLC d/b/a Woofie’s Pet Boutique. HDD is a company
`that markets plush stuffed toys and beds for dogs under names
`that parody the products of other companies. HDD sells products
`such as Chewnel #5, Dog Perignon, Chewy Vuiton, and Sniffany &
`Co. in pet stores, alongside other dog toys, bones, beds, and
`food, and most are priced around $10. Plaintiff’s complaint
`specifically refers to HDD’s use of the mark “Chewy Vuiton” and
`alleges that this mark, as well as other marks and designs that
`imitate Plaintiff’s trademarks and copyrights, violate
`Plaintiff’s trademark, trade dress, and copyright rights.
`Plaintiff and Defendants have filed cross-motions for summary
`judgment. These motions are currently before the Court.
`II. Standard of Review
`Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record
`shows that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
`that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
`law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
`Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Evans v. Techs. Applications &
`Serv., Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958-59 (4th Cir. 1996)(citations

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 3 of 26 PageID# 3
`omitted). In reviewing the record on summary judgment, “the
`court must draw any inferences in the light most favorable to the
`non-movant” and “determine whether the record taken as a whole
`could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the
`non-movant.” Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., 933 F.2d 1253, 1259
`(4th Cir. 1991)(citations omitted).
`The very existence of a scintilla of evidence or of
`unsubstantiated conclusory allegations, however, is insufficient
`to avoid summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-52.
`Rather, the Court must determine whether the record as a whole
`could lead a reasonable trier of fact to find for the non-movant.
`Id. at 248.
`III. Analysis
`Count I: Trademark Infringement
`Plaintiff and Defendants have filed cross-motions for
`summary judgment on the issue of trademark infringement. To
`prevail on a claim for trademark infringement, Plaintiff must
`show that it possesses a protectable mark, which Defendants used
`in commerce in connection with sale, offering for sale,
`distribution, or advertising in a manner likely to confuse
`customers. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney,
`263 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir. 2001). The unauthorized use of a
`trademark infringes the trademark holder's rights if it is likely
`to confuse an “ordinary consumer” as to the source or sponsorship

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 4 of 26 PageID# 4
`of the goods. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 962 F.2d
`316, 318 (4th Cir. 1992).
`Factors considered when determining the likelihood of
`confusion are: (1) strength and distinctiveness of the
`plaintiff’s mark; (2) degree of similarity between the two marks;
`(3) similarity of the products that the marks identify; (4)
`similarity of the facilities the two parties use in their
`business; (5) similarity of the advertising used by the two
`parties; (6) defendant’s intent; and (7) actual confusion.
`Pizzeria Uno Corp. v. Temple, 747 F.2d 1522, 1527 (4th Cir.
`1984). No single factor is dispositive, and these factors are
`not of equal importance or relevance in every case. Petro
`Shopping Centers v. James River Petroleum, Inc., 130 F.3d 88, 91
`(4th Cir. 1997). This Court must carefully consider each of
`these factors and determine by a totality of the circumstances if
`likelihood of confusion exists, and then determine if summary
`judgment is appropriate for Plaintiff or Defendants.
`A. Strength of Plaintiff’s Mark
`Strength of mark is usually a strong factor in
`determining customer confusion. However, in cases of parody, the
`opposite can be true. See, e.g., Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc.
`v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F.Supp.2d 410, 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). A
`“parody” is defined as a “simple form of entertainment conveyed
`by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 5 of 26 PageID# 5
`with the idealized image created by the mark's owner.” People
`for Ethical Treatment of Animals, 263 F.3d at 366 (citing LL
`Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 34 (1st Cir.
`1987). A parody must “convey two simultaneous-and contradictory-
`messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the
`original and is instead a parody.” Id. In cases of parody, a
`strong mark's fame and popularity is precisely the mechanism by
`which likelihood of confusion is avoided. See Hormel Foods Corp.
`v. Jim Henson Productions, Inc., 73 F.3d 497, 503-04 (2d Cir.
`1996); Schieffelin & Co. v. Jack Co. Of Boca, Inc., 850 F.Supp.
`232, 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)(“[c]ertainly it is unremarkable that
`[defendant] selected as the target of parody a readily
`recognizable product; indeed, one would hardly make a spoof of an
`obscure or unknown product!”); see also Hilfiger, 221 F.Supp.2d
`at 416 (“Hilfiger's famous mark likely allows consumers both
`immediately to recognize the target of the joke and to appreciate
`the obvious changes to the marks that constitute the joke”).
`In the Tommy Hilfiger case, cited by Defendants, the
`Southern District of New York dismissed Plaintiff Hilfiger’s
`claim of infringement on summary judgement, finding the use of
`the name “Timmy Holedigger” for a brand of pet perfume was a
`permissible parody of the Hilfiger name and did not infringe
`Hilfiger’s trademark. 221 F.Supp.2d at 420. The Court found
`that although Hilfiger was in the fragrance business, it did not

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 6 of 26 PageID# 6
`manufacture pet perfumes, and the use of the name “Timmy
`Holedigger” was an obvious parody. Id.
`While it is undisputed that Plaintiff possesses a
`strong and widely recognized mark, this Court is persuaded by the
`factually similar Hilfiger decision. The name “Chewy Vuiton” is,
`like “Timmy Holedigger,” an obvious parody of a famous brand
`name. The fact that the real Vuitton name, marks, and dress are
`strong and recognizable makes it unlikely that a
`parody–particularly one involving a pet chew toy and bed--will be
`confused with the real product. As the Hilfiger Court held, “[a]
`distinctive mark will not favor plaintiff in these
`circumstances.” Id. at 416.
`B. Similarity of the Marks
`The next factor that is to be considered is the
`similarity of the marks and trade dress. Once again, Defendants
`do not deny that the marks are similar, but argues that the name
`“Chewy Vuiton” and the associated marks and colorings are a
`parody of the Vuitton name and marks. As stated before,
`similarity is an essential part of a parody, as the similar marks
`and trade dress must “convey two simultaneous-and contradictory-
`messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the
`original and is instead a parody.” People for the Ethical
`Treatment of Animals, 263 F.3d at 366. In this case, Plaintiff’s
`marks contain an interlocking L and V, with two distinct coloring

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 7 of 26 PageID# 7
`patterns, printed on leather women’s handbags. (Pltf.’s Mot.
`Summ. J. Ex. at A4-A5). The marks used by Defendants are an
`interlocking C and V with similar coloring schemes and patterns.
`There is no doubt that the two are similar. Nonetheless, this
`Court has considered the evidence, and finds that two
`simultaneous messages are conveyed by Defendants’ marks and
`dress. The marks and dress are similar enough for the average
`consumer to recognize a humorous association with the Vuitton
`mark, without likely confusing that same customer that it really
`is a Vuitton product. The similarities do exist, but they are
`necessary as part of the parody, for without them, no parody
`C. Proximity of the Products
`The Court must next consider the proximity of the
`products. The Court will analyze the similarity of the
`facilities and advertising that the Plaintiff and Defendants use
`in their businesses, as well as the similarities in the products
`themselves. Pizzeria Uno, 747 F.2d at 1527.
`i. Vuitton Handbags and Chewy Vuiton Toys
`Plaintiff’s trade dress includes one design with a white background and
`a pastel color pattern consisting of blue, pink, yellow, green, and brown
`marks(Vuitton Monogram Multicolor), including the interlocking L and V. An
`additional trade dress offered by the Plaintiff includes a brown background
`with red cherries and green stems (Vuitton Cerises). Both of Plaintiff’s
`trade dresses are printed on leather handbags. Defendants offer products that
`look similar, but also different. Defendants’ mark and dress are slightly
`different in color and contain an interlocking C and V. But most importantly,
`they are printed on a plush dog toy or a dog bed. Defendants do not make
`high-end leather products or actual purses.

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 8 of 26 PageID# 8
`The products directly at issue in this case are the
`Vuitton handbags and the Chewy Vuiton toys, which parody them.
`Comparing the two sets of products, this Court finds that
`Vuitton’s high-end, leather luxury handbags share little product-
`type similarity to a plush dog toy or dog bed that is shaped like
`a handbag. Defendants’ products are not bags, are not made out
`of leather, and are clearly not meant to be used as handbags,
`even for children. After carefully considering each product,
`this Court finds that the two product lines fall into completely
`different industries, and are thus not proximate in this respect.
`ii. Proximity of Louis Vuitton Toys and Pet Products
`to Chewy Vuiton Products
`Vuitton sells a limited amount of pet products, such as
`collars, leashes, leads, and pet carriers, and also sells one toy
`item, a stuffed bear for children. These facts weigh in favor of
`the Plaintiff. Nonetheless, there is not enough similarity
`between the two to likely cause customer confusion. While
`Vuitton makes high-end pet products such as collars and leashes
`that range in price from $215 to $1600, the Chewy Vuiton line
`consists of toys and beds, mostly priced below $20, made for pets
`to destroy or sleep upon–or on occasion to wrestle over with
`their peers or find other, more creative ways to desecrate. 2
`Plaintiff points out that Chewy Vuiton beds sell for $120, which is
`somewhat comparable to a $215 collar made by Vuitton. In doing so, Plaintiff
`seeks to compare the single most expensive item made by HDD to the cheapest
`pet item made by Vuitton. Despite the fact that beds are larger and more
`expensive items than collars or leashes, the bed price is still nearly $100

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 9 of 26 PageID# 9
`Plaintiff manufactures only one toy item, a stuffed bear for
`children. (Pltf.’s Reply at Ex. 3). Plaintiff does not
`manufacture pet toys or any toy versions of its handbags that
`look similar to Defendants’ products. However, Louis Vuitton
`does manufacture a suede pet carrier, which is somewhat similar
`to the Chewy Vuiton products. (Pltf.’s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A85-
`A86). Accordingly, this factor offers support to Plaintiff’s
`iii. Trade and Marketing Channels
`Louis Vuitton products and Chewy Vuiton products are
`primarily sold and marketed in different trade channels. As
`noted, Louis Vuitton does sell a limited number of products to
`pet owners, however these products, as all LVM products, are sold
`exclusively through their own boutique stores or through
`boutiques in department stores. (Pltf.’s Opp. Ex. D). To the
`contrary, Chewy Vuiton products are primarily sold in retail pet
`stores, and are dispersed to those stores through a distributor
`called Wholesale Pet. (Pltf.’s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. B at 175:19-
`176:5). The only store identified as carrying both Chewy Vuiton
`less than Vuitton’s cheapest product, while Vuitton’s most expensive pet
`products are priced at $1600. Furthermore, the $120 price does not indicate a
`“high-end” status for dog beds, many of which range above $100.
`Melissa Cohen testified that Vuitton sells “high-end items,” and that
`all of the Vuitton stores were owned by Louis Vuitton. (Pltf.’s Mot. Summ. J.
`Ex. D). Ms. Cohen further testified that Vuitton operates its own stores in a
`number of high-end department stores, such as Bloomingdale’s, Saks Fifth
`Avenue, Neiman Marcus, and Macy’s in New York City. Id. Vuitton does not
`sell its items through independent third party vendors. Id.

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 10 of 26 PageID# 10
`and Louis Vuitton products is the Macy’s in New York. Id. at
`175:6-12. Likewise, LVM products are marketed primarily through
`high-end fashion magazines and feature models and celebrities,
`while Chewy Vuiton products are marketed through pet-supply
`channels and feature dogs. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. F; Pltf’s
`Mot. Summ. J. Ex. A).
`Both product lines are also sold and marketed through
`the internet. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. Ex. F; Pltf’s Mot. Summ J.
`Ex. A). This fact by itself does not imply that the same trade
`channels were used for the purposes of determining likely
`customer confusion. Reaching this same issue, the Sixth Circuit
`recently concluded that “a non-specific reference to Internet use
`is no more proof of a company's marketing channels than the fact
`that it is listed in the Yellow Pages of the telephone
`directory.” Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623,
`633 (6th Cir. 2002). In that case, the Sixth Circuit outlined
`several additional factors to consider:
`(1) whether both parties use the Web as a
`substantial marketing and advertising channel,
`(2) whether the parties' marks are utilized in
`conjunction with Web-based products, and (3)
`whether the parties' marketing channels
`overlap in any other way.
`Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in
`original). In this case, both Vuitton and HDD use the internet
`as a substantial marketing and advertising channel, and both use
`their marks in conjunction with their web-based products.

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 11 of 26 PageID# 11
`Finally, the two products are not sold on the same web sites, as
`Vuitton products are sold exclusively through Vuitton’s web site,
`, while HDD products are sold through independent
`vendors. Nonetheless, because both are sold in malls and through
`the internet, there is some overlap between the retail markets
`and trade channels, and this factor weighs in favor of the
`D. Likelihood that Prior Owner will Bridge the Gap Between
`the Products
`Currently, nothing alleged indicates Louis Vuitton’s
`desire to enter the dog toy market. Therefore, this factor
`weighs in favors of the Defendants.
`E. Actual Confusion
`“Actual confusion” means actual consumer confusion that
`allows the seller to pass off his goods as the goods of another.
`The Sports Authority, Inc. v. Prime Hospitality Corp., 89 F.3d
`955, 963 (2d Cir. 1996). Plaintiff is not required to prove
`actual confusion to prove the likelihood of confusion. Pizzeria
`Uno, 747 F.2d at 1527. However, evidence of actual confusion is
`the best evidence of likelihood of confusion. Synergistic Int’l,
`LLC v. Korman, 402 F.Supp.2d 651, 663 (E.D. Va. 2005).
`In this case, Plaintiff has provided no substantial
`evidence of “actual confusion,” and conceded during oral argument
`that no actual confusion exists. In fact, Plaintiff only
`referred to a single instance where Defendants’ customer, Jake’s

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 12 of 26 PageID# 12
`Dog House (“Jake’s”) referred to HDD’s products as “Louis
`Vuittons.” (Jake’s Dep. Tr. at 45). However, taken in context
`with the remainder of the deposition, it is clear that no actual
`confusion existed. Deponent explained, rather bluntly, “if I
`really thought that a $10 dog toy made out of fluff and stuff was
`an actual Louis Vuitton product, [then] I would be stupid.” Id.
`It is clear from the deposition testimony offered by the
`Plaintiff, taken in its whole context, that no actual confusion
`existed on the part of Jake’s that Chewy Vuiton products were
`actually Louis Vuitton.
`Nor are the alleged misspellings of “Chewy Vuiton” as
`“Chewy Vuitton” indicative of customer confusion. First, the
`use of the word “Chewy” is not easily mistaken for the French
`first name “Louis,” and clearly indicates parody. Second,
`spelling the second word “Vuiton” or “Vuitton” does not indicate
`any confusion, other than how to spell the word itself. The fact
`that a customer mistakenly spells the parody product with two
`“t”s instead of one does not convey that the customer was
`confused about the source of the product.
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no credible
`evidence of actual confusion. Nothing in the facts presented
`indicates that customers purchasing or viewing “Chewy Vuiton”
`The Second Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Hormel Foods Corp.
`v. Jim Henson Productions, Inc., 73 F.3d 497, 504 (2d Cir. 1996).

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 13 of 26 PageID# 13
`products believed those products were made by or associated with
`Plaintiff Louis Vuitton other than as a parody of the Vuitton
`name. Considering all of these facts, this Court finds that the
`lack of actual confusion in this case weighs heavily in favor of
`F. Bad Faith on Part of Defendants
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ use of marks and
`trade dress similar to those of Plaintiff Vuitton were done for
`the purpose of commercial gain, and not parody, and therefore
`done in bad faith. This argument lacks merit. “An intent to
`parody is not an intent to confuse the public.” Jordache
`Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir.
`1987). Instead, “[t]he benefit to one making a parody...arises
`from the humorous association, not from public confusion as [to]
`the source of the marks.” Id. “Chewy Vuiton” is a parody of
`“Louis Vuitton.” The benefits that HDD derives from the use of
`this parody arise not from customer confusion, but from the
`humorous association between “Chewy Vuiton,” a dog toy, and the
`high-end line of products made by Louis Vuitton. There is no
`showing of bad faith on the part of the Defendants, and this
`factor weighs heavily in favor of Defendants.
`G. Additional Factors Identified by the Second Circuit:
`Quality of Defendants’ Product and Sophistication of Buyers
`The Second Circuit has identified two further areas of
`consideration to determine if customer confusion exists: (1)

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 14 of 26 PageID# 14
`quality of Defendants’ products and (2) sophistication of buyers.
`Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495
`(2d Cir. 1961). With respect to the quality factor, the Second
`Circuit has held that similarity in quality enhances the
`likelihood of confusion. Morningside Group, Ltd. v. Morningside
`Capital Group, LLC, 182 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 1999). With
`respect to the sophistication factor, the Second Circuit has held
`that a substantial price associated with high-end goods “requires
`buyers to exercise care before they part with their money, and
`such sophistication generally militates against a finding of
`confusion.” Charles of the Ritz, Ltd. v. Quality Distribs, Inc.,
`832 F.2d 1313, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987).
`In this case, there is a clear difference in quality
`between Vuitton products and the “Chewy Vuiton” line made by HDD
`and sophistication of the buyers. Louis Vuitton mainly
`manufactures high-quality leather handbags associated with wealth
`and social status. While Vuitton makes some pet products such as
`collars and leashing, ranging in price from $215 to $1600, the
`items are high-end and mainly made of fine leather. To the
`contrary, the “Chewy Vuiton” line consists of plush chew toys and
`beds, mostly priced below $20, made for pets to destroy or sleep
`upon. Plaintiff points out that Chewy Vuiton beds sell for $120,
`which is somewhat comparable to a $215 collar made by Vuitton.
`However, this argument is unconvincing. The dog bed mentioned is

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 15 of 26 PageID# 15
`the single most expensive item made by HDD, and many dog beds
`range from $50 to $100 in price. On the other hand Vuitton’s
`limited number of pet products begin at $215, the most expensive
`being priced at $1600. Contrary to dog beds, these prices are
`clearly high-end for collars, leashes, and pet carriers.
`H. Conclusion for Trademark Infringement
`For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds, taking the
`evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, no
`reasonable trier of fact would conclude that likelihood of
`confusion exists between Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ products.
`This Court has considered all of the Pizzeria Uno factors and
`finds that, while the Plaintiff’s mark is strong and there is
`some proximity of the products, the lack of actual confusion and
`bad faith, coupled with the considerations of parody
`substantially outweigh the factors that favor the Plaintiff.
`While consideration of the Pizzeria Uno factors were sufficient
`in making its determination, the Court is further swayed by the
`additional factors set out by the Second Circuit, which also
`favor the Defendants. For these reasons, the Court concludes
`that summary judgment is appropriate on the issue of trademark
`infringement. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiff’s motion
`for summary judgment and grant Defendants’ cross-motion on the
`count of trademark infringement.
`Count II: Dilution

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 16 of 26 PageID# 16
`Plaintiff seeks an injunction under the Federal
`Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The
`Trademark Dilution Act provides that the owner of a famous mark
`can enjoin “another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark
`or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become
`famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the
`mark.” CareFirst of Maryland, Inc. v. First Care, 434 F.3d 263,
`274 (4th Cir. 2006)(citing 15 U.S.C. § 1127). The Fourth Circuit
`has defined dilution as “the lessening of the capacity of a
`famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.” Id.
`While a court may find dilution even where it does not
`find likelihood of confusion, Id., the Supreme Court has held
`that the dilution statute “unambiguously requires a showing of
`actual dilution, rather than a likelihood of dilution.” Moseley
`v. Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418, 433 (2003). Actual
`dilution occurs by either a blurring of the mark’s identification
`or a tarnishment of the positive associations the mark has come
`to convey. See id. This action commenced on March 24, 2006.
`However, following the commencement of litigation, the dilution
`statute was amended by Congress to exclude the “actual dilution”
`requirement in place of a “likely dilution” one. See Trademark
`Dilution Revision Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-312, 120 Stat.
`1730 (amending 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1946)). This Court must
`therefore decide the retroactive effect of the amended statute.

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 17 of 26 PageID# 17
`In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, Inc., 511 U.S. 244
`(1994), the Supreme Court established a two-part test to
`determine the retroactive effect of a statute. First, a court
`should determine “whether Congress has expressly prescribed the
`statute’s proper reach.” Id. at 280. In an instance where
`Congress has proscribed an effective date, courts must respect
`the will of Congress. Id. Second, when Congress has not
`proscribed an effective date, a court must determine if the
`statute will “impair rights a party possessed when [it] acted,
`increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new
`duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. If
`it does, then a court should not apply the new statute to the
`pending case. Id.; see also Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F.3d 540, 545
`(4th Cir. 1999)(quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280). However, the
`Supreme Court also stated that “relief by injunction operates in
`futuro and the right to it must be determined as of the time of
`the hearing.” American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central
`Trades, 257 U.S. 184, 201 (1921); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at
`273-74. In this case, Plaintiff has pled for injunctive relief
`on the issue of dilution. See Compl. at ¶78. Therefore, the
`amended statute will apply in this case.
`A. Dilution by Blurring
`Dilution by blurring is association arising from the
`similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 18 of 26 PageID# 18
`impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. See Trademark
`Dilution Revision Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-312, 120 Stat.
`1730. Dilution by blurring occurs when consumers mistakenly
`associate a famous mark with goods and services of a junior mark,
`thereby diluting the power of the senior mark to identify and
`distinguish associated goods and services. Ringling Bros.-Barnum
`& Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Utah Div. of Travel Dev., 955
`F.Supp. 605, 616 (E.D. Va. 1997)(citing Mead Data Cent., Inc. v.
`Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 875 F.2d 1026, 1031 (2d Cir.
`1989). According to the amended statute, in determining whether
`a mark or trade name is likely to cause dilution by blurring, the
`court may consider all relevant factors, including the following:
`(i) the degree of similarity between the mark
`or trade name and the famous mark;
`(ii) the degree of inherent or acquired
`distinctiveness of the famous mark;
`(iii) the extent to which the owner of the
`famous mark is engaging in substantially
`exclusive use of the mark;
`(iv) the degree of recognition of the famous
`(v) whether the user of the mark or trade name
`intended to create an association with the
`famous mark; and
`(vi) any actual association between the mark
`or trade name and the famous mark.
`Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-312, 120
`Stat. 1730. Since the Fourth Circuit has not offered opinion on
`the new “likelihood of dilution” standard, for guidance this
`Court looks to the Second Circuit’s application of New York
`General Business Law § 360-1, which incorporates the likelihood

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 19 of 26 PageID# 19
`of dilution standard now adopted by Congress. Using this
`standard, the Second Circuit and its district courts have held on
`numerous occasions that in the case of parody, “the use of famous
`marks in parodies causes no loss of distinctiveness, since the
`success of the use depends upon the continued association with
`the plaintiff.” See Yankee Publishing, Inc. v. News America
`Publishing, Inc., 809 F.Supp. 267, 282 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)(applying
`New York statute); see also Tommy Hilfiger, 221 F.Supp.2d at 422-
`23 (“the presence of a famous mark on certain products may have
`little diluting effect, particularly where it is obvious that the
`defendant intends the public to associate the use with the true
`owner”); Hormel, 73 F.3d at 506 (finding no likelihood that
`defendant’s puppet “Spa’am” would dilute the association of the
`Hormel mark with “Spam” lunchmeat).
`Defendants do not dispute that the Plaintiff’s mark is
`strong and famous. Nonetheless, this Court finds no likelihood
`that the parody of Plaintiff’s mark by Defendants will result in
`dilution of Plaintiff’s mark. This Court finds, like the New
`York and Second Circuit courts, the mark continues to be
`associated with the true owner, Louis Vuitton. Its strength is
`not likely to be blurred by a parody dog toy product. Instead of
`blurring Plaintiff’s mark, the success of the parodic use depends
`This Court also agrees with Defendants’ argument that actual dilution
`does not exist, but in light of the amended statute concentrates instead on
`likelihood of dilution.

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 20 of 26 PageID# 20
`upon the continued association with Louis Vuitton. This Court
`finds that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that
`Plaintiff’s mark is diluted by blurring in this case, and summary
`judgment is appropriate. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for
`summary judgment will be granted for dilution by blurring.
`B. Dilution by Tarnishment
`Tarnishment occurs when the plaintiff’s trademark is
`likened to products of low quality, or is portrayed in a negative
`context. Deere & Co. v. MTD Prods., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2d Cir.
`1994). When the association is made through harmless or clean
`puns and parodies, however, tarnishment is unlikely. Jordache
`Enters. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 625 F.Supp. 48, 57 (D.N.M. 1985),
`aff’d, 828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s assertions
`that Chewy Vuiton products tarnish LVM’s marks by associating
`“inferior products” with the Vuitton name are baseless, and
`without merit. Plaintiff provides neither examples of actual
`tarnishment, nor any evidence that shows likely tarnishment. At
`oral argument, Plaintiff provided only a flimsy theory that a pet
`may some day choke on a Chewy Vuiton squeak toy and incite the
`wrath of a confused consumer against Louis Vuitton. Therefore,
`even taking into account the amended statute, this Court
`concludes that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the
`Plaintiff on the issue of dilution by tarnishment. Accordingly,

`Case 1:06-cv-00321-JCC-BRP Document 58 Filed 11/03/06 Page 21 of 26 PageID# 21
`this Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants
`on this issue.
`Count III: Counterfeiting
`The Lanham Act defines a counterfeit mark as a
`“spurious mark which is identical with, or substantially
`indistinguishable from, a registered mark.” 15 U.S.C. § 1527.
`Determination of whether certain imported articles bear a
`counterfeit mark is to be determined from the perspective of the
`average purchaser rather than from the perspective of an expert.
`See Montres Rolex, S.A. v. Snyder, 718 F.2d 524 (2d Cir. 1983).
`In this case, the marks are not identical or indistinguishable.
`While they are close enough for the average consumer to
`appreciate the parody, an interlocking “CV” is clearly
`distinguishable from an interlocking “LV”, and the average
`purchaser would not confuse the mark of Chewy Vuiton products
`with those of Plaintiff. Nor are the coloring patterns and
`designs identical or indistinguishable. After considering both
`marks, this Court finds that no reasonable trier of fact could
`conclude otherwise. Therefore, this Court will grant Defendants’
`motion for summary judgment and deny Plaintiff’s motion on this
`Count IV: Copyright Violation
`To prevail on a claim for copyright infringement,
`Plaintiff must show that (1) it owned a valid copyright;

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.


A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.

Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket