4 ms·

First of all I absolutely believe that the crafter has (and should have) the right to do what he did. That being said, > without any LV logos or representatio

by yreg 2y ago

First of all I absolutely believe that the crafter has (and should have) the right to do what he did. That being said, > without any LV logos or representation that these are a LV product the LV logo is right there in the center of the product. https://youtu.be/zDAg1aVnnH4?si=PjVRhwyMVl34akj2&t=646 https://youtu.be/zDAg1aVnnH4?si=PjVRhwyMVl34akj2&t=646

dylan604 2y ago
Yeah, this was a confusing thing to me too, but apparently the logo making the pattern in the print is not the "logo" they are talking about. Yes, it is the logo printed on the leather, but LV products also have other markings using the logo that help identify it as an authentic LV product. There are other things like clasps, stitching, edge work, etc as well that identify authentic products. These are the things that have been removed as well as the stamped logo of this person's brand on it which quite clearly LV would never do. All of this is explained in the video linked elsewhere in this thread from the actual leather worker that the TFA video is glomming onto.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  It sure looks like it's the Louis Vuitton logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Vuitton_LV_logo.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Vuitton_LV_log... https://i.imgur.com/3vXfA1n.png https://i.imgur.com/3vXfA1n.png The LV logo is also displayed on clasps and whatnot, sure. But he's still selling a product that prominently displays the LV logo. His rationale seems to be that since repurposing fabric and leather is legal, it's also legal to build and sell products that clearly display the LV logo because it's printed on the repurposed fabric. I'm not sure whether this would actually hold up in court or not.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    You're still confusing on what they are considering the logo by being the stamp of the brand claiming who made it. If anyone were to look at it and see the other logo clearly stamped on it, it would be obvious it was not an LV bag. Knock-offs use fake fabric but try to hide it be using the logo to make it look like it was an official LV bag while selling as if it was an LV bag. None of that is what this person is actually doing. There is no intent on scamming someone. This person clearly says this is something they made.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Sure, he's putting the Corter Leather logo on the product. But he's also using the trademarked LV logo. It's not as egregious as outright counterfeiting, where people build products trying to nearly exactly resemble a genuine LV product. But at the end of the day, he's still putting the LV logo front and center in the wallet. You don't automatically get to use another company's trademark just because you also put your own trademark on the product. Less egregious trademark infringement is still trademark infringement. Louis Vuitton was wrong to accuse him of counterfeiting, but they can accurately accuse him of trademark infringement. It sounds like his rationale is that he's only repurposing the material on the cut-up LV bag, which makes prominently displaying the LV trademark legal. I'm pretty skeptical he'd prevail if this actually went to court.

by yreg 2y ago

dylan604 2y ago

Yeah, this was a confusing thing to me too, but apparently the logo making the pattern in the print is not the "logo" they are talking about. Yes, it is the logo printed on the leather, but LV products also have other markings using the logo that help identify it as an authentic LV product. There are other things like clasps, stitching, edge work, etc as well that identify authentic products. These are the things that have been removed as well as the stamped logo of this person's brand on it which quite clearly LV would never do. All of this is explained in the video linked elsewhere in this thread from the actual leather worker that the TFA video is glomming onto.

Manuel_D 2y ago
It sure looks like it's the Louis Vuitton logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Vuitton_LV_logo.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Louis_Vuitton_LV_log... https://i.imgur.com/3vXfA1n.png https://i.imgur.com/3vXfA1n.png The LV logo is also displayed on clasps and whatnot, sure. But he's still selling a product that prominently displays the LV logo. His rationale seems to be that since repurposing fabric and leather is legal, it's also legal to build and sell products that clearly display the LV logo because it's printed on the repurposed fabric. I'm not sure whether this would actually hold up in court or not.
- dylan604 2y ago
  You're still confusing on what they are considering the logo by being the stamp of the brand claiming who made it. If anyone were to look at it and see the other logo clearly stamped on it, it would be obvious it was not an LV bag. Knock-offs use fake fabric but try to hide it be using the logo to make it look like it was an official LV bag while selling as if it was an LV bag. None of that is what this person is actually doing. There is no intent on scamming someone. This person clearly says this is something they made.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    Sure, he's putting the Corter Leather logo on the product. But he's also using the trademarked LV logo. It's not as egregious as outright counterfeiting, where people build products trying to nearly exactly resemble a genuine LV product. But at the end of the day, he's still putting the LV logo front and center in the wallet. You don't automatically get to use another company's trademark just because you also put your own trademark on the product. Less egregious trademark infringement is still trademark infringement. Louis Vuitton was wrong to accuse him of counterfeiting, but they can accurately accuse him of trademark infringement. It sounds like his rationale is that he's only repurposing the material on the cut-up LV bag, which makes prominently displaying the LV trademark legal. I'm pretty skeptical he'd prevail if this actually went to court.