Louis Vuitton angry about Darfur campaign

In October last year designer Nadia Plesner started a campaign called Simple Living to raise awareness of the ongoing genocide in Darfur and to raise money for the helping organization Divest for Darfur. The thought was: Since doing nothing but wearing designerbags and small ugly dogs appearantly is enough to get you on a magazine cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserves and needs attention.
That is why Nadia choose to mix the cruel reality with showbiz elements. The result was the poster above, also available on a t-shirt.

In February this year, Nadia received a letter from Louis Vuitton’s (French fashion designer) main office in Paris, asking firmly to end the campaign immediately, as they believe one of their products is being portrayed in the art piece:

“Although we applaud your efforts to raise awareness and funds to help Darfur, a most worthy cause, we cannot help noticing that the design of the Simple Living Products includes the reproduction of a bag infringing on Louis Vuitton’s Intellectual Property Rights, in particular the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore Trademark to which it is confusingly similar. We are surprised of such a promotion of a counterfeit bag.”
“As an artist yourself, we hope that you regognize the need to respect other artists’ rights and Louis Vuitton’s Intellectual Property Rights which include the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore trademark.”

This is part of the answer from Nadia Plesner:

“However, I must inform You, that the bag in my drawing is inspired by - and refers to - designers bags in general – not a Louis Vuitton bag.
If you take a closer look, you will also notice, that the pattern in my drawing is not the pattern which is used in the design of a Loius Vuitton bag.
The name Louis Vuitton is in no way mentioned or referred to, neither in my drawing, nor in the campaign as such.”

Talks between the laywers of Louis Vuitton and Nadia Plesner will take place at the end of May.

Update: Although I think Nadia is sincere, the design of the handbag looks very similar to a Louis Vuitton design. See this image.

I think the design of the poster is great. It shows the ridiculous gap between rich and poor, first world and third world. Is it smart from from Louis Vuitton to make such a hassle? Is there intellectual property harmed by this campaign? I don’t think so.
Or what one of the commenters asked at Nadia’s website forum: was Andy Warhol sued for his portrayal of the Campbell’s soup cans?
What is your opinion? Please let us know in the comments.

Digg this story

Add to del.icio.us

Stumble It!

Comments

I’m by no means an intellectual property lawyer - especially when it comes to international law - but in the United States, this could easily be defended under the doctrine of fair use, and it’s my understanding that it could be successful even if Nadia had used Louis Vuitton’s logo.  Other countries use the concept of fair dealing… does anyone know about Denmark specifically?

Also not a lawyer… but it’s really rather simple- Parody.  LV designs are, themselves, a pop culture reference point and the usage in a piece of art could fall under Section 107 (’Fair Use’)… and thanks to the ever amazing 2 Live Crew, in 1994 Parody received Supreme Court Approval. (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)) See: http://www.publaw.com/parody.html for more on the legal aspect.  Ron English has been fighting these battles for years, and I’m sure his lawyers have some advice.  As for the art itself, though done well, it’s rather cliche- and unmentionable unless this starts ending up on billboards throughout LA.

Louis Vuitton hasn’t a hope in hell of mounting a successful legal action. Even attempting to do so makes the company look like pompous greedy idiots. A clever adviser would have suggested that Louis Vuitton acknowledge what the artist is trying to do, and their own position as part of the rich western establishment, and make a commitment to supporting the campaign to help Darfur, maybe by donating a proportion of the profit from this particular line to the Darfur cause.There are dozens of ways that they could use this opportunity both to do some good in the world and to improve their image. Fire your PR adviser, is my advice to Louis Vuitton. And if you have a heart, show it now.

Pat Law wrote a personal statement about LV:
http://blankanvas.bypatlaw.com/?p=680

Jeremiah Owyang, Sr Analyst at Forrester Research, wrote a good in depth article about the strategy from LV:
http://www.web-strategist.com/

LV should just join the campaign in my opinion. :D it will make them look better in public…

to James: the words “easily defended” and “fair use” contradict each other. The fair use line of defense is extremely fickle and has been weakened, case after case. People using copyrighted material thinking they were safe under fair use have lost, even in the non-profit sector or in education. see http://www.turnergreen.com/publications/Tehranian_Infringement_Nation.pdf for a plethora of examples.
Now do LV have a case? well it’s their business to protect their brand. they have every right to do so. LV designers have been working for over 2 centuries to build the brand, to make it the synonym of luxury and elegance. Now they are dragged in that nasty controversy, from comments on the web they pass as the bad guys in darfur, or at best, as a symbol of decadence. who would accept that?
I don’t think the artist is sincere. LV offered them to settle this by changing the design,
she wouldn’t and now uses this dispute as a PR stint. I say she’s picking the wrong fight. she’s not helping her cause by doing this.

vozome: How much is Louis Vitton paying you to astroturf?

Such a clear case of fair use (or fair dealing depending on where the artist lives) that I am surprised that lawyer’s intestines didn’t jump up to strangle the stupid git and save the world from further embarrassment.

Vozome, brands are covered by trademarks, not by copyrights. Your suggestion that this drawing constitutes copyright infringement because of LV’s trademark is not going to wash in a court of law.

Vozome,
Thanks for the PDF, I wasn’t aware that fair use had been so contested, and so frequently defeated. 

I still think that “the purpose and character of the use” of the work - as the primary criterion for fair use in the United States - permits use of the trademark.  I’m not sure that a court would even find Nadia violated the trademark in question, but even if they did, this is a parody, and fair use or fair dealing ought to excuse her from culpability.

Please keep us apprised of updates, Marc!