The reports said: “A lready, Louis Vuitton’s legal department has filed lawsuits against big corporations such as Hyundai for infringing on its brand in a car commercial and Warner Brothers for using a fake bag in the movie ‘Hangover 2’.”
But the beautiful Ghanaian actress came out to clear the air. She said she did not use fake Louis Vuitton and even called on her accusers and the public to come to her YN Fashion shop to check out the designs. But her accusers didn’t show up.
Currently, reports from the international circles said Louis Vuitton had lost its case against Warner Brothers.
Below is a culled story from the Daily Mail in the UK:
‘Louis Vuitton Loses Court Battle Against Warner Brothers After Judge Finds Use Of Knock-Off Bag In ‘Hangover Part II’ 'Funny.'
Louis Vuitton has lost its lawsuit against the Warner Brothers studio for using a knock-off bag in the film ‘The Hangover: Part II’. It turns out the judge on the case had more of a sense of humour than the luxury label, which sought financial damages after the hit comedy featured, and poked fun at, a fake Louis Vuitton bag.
Louis Vuitton claimed it was harmed by the misrepresentation, but U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter dismissed the allegations and defended the 'funny' scene, writing: “It adds to the image of Alan as a socially inept and comically misinformed character.”
The scene the judge was referring to is set at an airport, where the character Alan Garner, played by Zach Galifianakis says 'Careful... that's a Louis Vuitton.'
For comic effect, the word 'Louis' is also mispronounced as 'Lewis,' the quote becoming a hallmark catchphrase from the movie. Louis Vuitton claimed the company was harmed by this statement in particular, however Judge Carter wrote: “The likelihood of confusion [to viewers] is at best minimal”
He added that it was unlikely that film-goers would have noticed the bag, which was on screen for less than 30 seconds, was in fact a knock-off.
He also said that the audience would have thought Louis Vuitton approved of Warner Brothers' use of the Diophy bag, and found that film company should not be held liable.
He wrote: “Alan's terse remark to Teddy to '[be] [c]areful' because his bag 'is a Lewis Vuitton’ comes across as snobbish only because the public signifies Louis Vuitton - to which the Diophy bag looks confusingly similar - with luxury and a high society lifestyle”
“His remark also comes across as funny because he mispronounces the French 'Louis' like the English 'Lewis,' and ironic because he cannot correctly pronounce the brand name of one of his expensive possessions, adding to the image of Alan as a socially inept and comically misinformed character,” he added.
“The court concludes that Louis Vuitton's allegations of confusion are not plausible, let alone ‘particularly compelling’,” the judge wrote in summary.
Theodore Max, a lawyer for Louis Vuitton, had no immediate comment.