The fashion house hoped to claim damages from the film company, who used a replica LV bag in its 2011 buddy comedy The Hangover: Part II. But Judge Andrew Carter found that Warner Brothers should not be held liable.
The judge said most filmgoers would have barely noticed that the bag, which enjoyed less than 30 seconds of screen time, was a fake. He added that most viewers would also assume Louis Vuitton gave consent for the bag's usage.
"The likelihood of confusion is at best minimal," he said.
That might be true, but it's an interesting line to take considering the publicity surrounding this case. After all, now we all know Louis Vuitton gave no such consent. But should Louis Vuitton be awarded damages simply because it's drawn attention to something the courts believe should have been a non-issue?
Louis Vuitton's legal team have declined to comment on the case, but no doubt they're not impressed that they miss out on some of the $580 million The Hangover: Part II's taken.
It's unusual to see Louis Vuitton losing out in a copyright case. Do you agree with Judge Carter's ruling?
Louis Vuitton Bags on eBay
|Authentic Louis Vuitton Monogram 25 Speedy Leather Purse Hand Bag
US $154.50 33 Bids
Auction Ends: 25m
Make it yours...