Louis Vuitton Successfully Flushes ‘Pooey Puitton’ Out Of France
Image via Amazon, background generated on AI
Louis Vuitton is number one, Pooey Puitton is number two. In a significant decision on April 25, the Tribunal of First Instance in France ruled in favor of the luxury house following a long-running trademark dispute against US toymaker MGA Entertainment dating back to 2018. The case centered around MGA’s hot-selling Pooey Puitton toy, which the brand argued clearly exploited its well-known trademarks.
The Pooey Puitton, a poop emoji-shaped purse containing glittery slime, featured a design composed of a sequence of alternating floral motifs on a white background—drawing immediate comparisons with Louis Vuitton’s signature Multicolor monogram.
Today I’ve been thinking about the “Monogram Multicolore” collection designed by Murakami for Louis Vuitton. Here are a few pieces available on The Real Real. Most of these styles are discontinued such as the “Trouville” or the whimsically titled “Wapity” pouch. pic.twitter.com/AWnvhVTJbf
— ð•Šð•¡ð•–ð•Ÿð•”ð•–ð•£, directed by Pablo Larraín (@TheS_Squared) May 15, 2023
Per The Fashion Law, Louis Vuitton contended that this design was likely to mislead consumers and capitalize on the “exceptional” reputation of its name, as well as the “very distinctive character” of its trademarks.
The French court sided with the fashion house, finding that the phonetically similar “Pooey Puitton” name and the mimicked design undoubtedly created a link between the toy and Louis Vuitton in the minds of consumers. This, the court held, amounted to taking “undue advantage” of the luxury brand’s strong reputation and distinctive trademarks.
Image via Amazon
While Louis Vuitton’s offerings cater to a comparably affluent crowd, the court recognized the label’s immense marketing reach. This widespread awareness, it ruled, meant the general public could easily be misled by the similar-sounding “Pooey Puitton” name and the slime kit’s imitation of the Multicolore monogram.
Image via Amazon
Ultimately, the court deemed MGA’s use of these elements not just a playful parody, but a tactic that took unfair advantage of Louis Vuitton’s established reputation. In legalese, the court found the toymaker’s actions “[inconsistent] with honest practices in commercial matters.”
[via The Fashion Law and Purse Bop, images via various sources]
