Louis Vuitton condoms

Georgian Irakli Kiziriaartist introduced Louis Vuitton condoms on World Aids Day. The artist came up with this idea, because LVMH (Louis Vuitton's parent company) supports various organizations in the field of research into public health. The condom was about € 60, - . A portion of the money can be beneficial to research into AIDS.

The condom is packaged in the golden brown colors showing the distinctive characters of Louis Vuitton. The condoms themselves bear the monogram. A noble idea, but its implementation still seems damages the carefully constructed image of Louis Vuitton. Something which Louis Vuitton strongly and systematically acts against. Think of the Hyundai commercial during the Super Bowl or the recent painting of Nadia Plesner Darfurnica. The product has since disappeared from the website of the artist.

trademarks



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?