'Pooey Puitton' Maker Seeks Parody Protection
Does a popular poop-shaped toy purse piggyback on the fame of French luxury retail company Louis Vuitton? Or is the “Pooey Puitton” a perfectly fine form of protected parody?
Los Angeles-based MGA Entertainment, maker of the $59.99 rainbow slime-filled toy, filed a complaint in federal court in late December, arguing that the Pooey Puitton does not infringe on Louis Vuitton’s intellectual-property rights. The lawsuit claims that Louis Vuitton told an MGA customer that the Pooey name infringed on and diluted its trademarks. But in the complaint, MGA counters the argument, noting that “no reasonable consumer would mistake the Pooey product for a Louis Vuitton handbag.”
MGA maintains that its line of “magical unicorn poop” is intended as parody. The Pooey name and product design “is intended to criticize or comment upon the rich and famous, the Louis Vuitton name, the LV marks, and on their conspicuous consumption,” MGA explains in the complaint.
MGA is seeking a court declaration that Pooey Puitton does not infringe on Louis Vuitton and is, in fact, protected as parody under the doctrine of fair use.
It’s the kind of legal battle that delights and distracts online onlookers.
But it’s also a case worth following for less whimsical reasons, raising questions about how far fair use protection goes when it comes to well-known trademarks. In the past, courts have not always looked favorably on parodies. Back in 2012,
a Missouri judge ordered clothing brand “The Butt Face,” a play on The North Face, to shut down operations for infringing on the popular outdoor apparel company’s trademark.
Louis Vuitton has been embroiled in many trademark spats over the years. In 2007, courts sided with Haute Diggity Dog, noting that its “Chewy Vuitton” plush pet chew toys were immediately obvious parodies. In 2014, Vuitton sued and ultimately lost an infringement case against My Other Bag, which depicted Louis Vuitton designs on canvas totes.
Intellectual property law can be a
thorny issue, particularly for apparel decorators and promotional products professionals. Last year, in
a landmark win for promo, drinkware supplier ETS Express (asi/51197) successfully took on S’well Bottle Company, which had sued ETS for trademark infringement on drinkware styles that ETS had sold before S’well unveiled its own product.