Louis Vuitton Malletier v. European Union Intellectual Property Office
European Union General Court
T-105/19 (2020)

- Written by Kelli Lanski, JD
Facts
Louis Vuitton Malletier (LV) (plaintiff) obtained a trademark from the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization for a checkerboard design for use on LV’s leather and imitation-leather bags, suitcases, and other consumer products. Norbert Wisniewski filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (defendant) asking that EUIPO declare LV’s mark invalid. Wisniewski argued that the mark was based on a commonplace design and was therefore not distinctive enough to warrant trademark protection. LV argued that the combination of the checkerboard pattern with alternating blue and beige squares and the use of a weft-and-wrap pattern on the squares themselves rendered the mark inherently distinctive. LV also entered 68 exhibits purporting to demonstrate that its checkerboard design, even if commonplace in theory, had acquired distinctiveness through LV’s use of the mark throughout Europe. EUIPO rejected LV’s argument and held that the mark, including the use of both a checkerboard and pattered squares within the design, was common within the norm and customs of the sectors in which LV sold its products and was therefore not distinctive. After reviewing a portion of LV’s evidence pertaining to the question of whether the mark had acquired distinctiveness through use, EUIPO rejected that argument, too. LV filed suit in European Union courts to contest the ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.