wy Vuiton" is an obvious parody and applying the Pizzeria Unofactors, the Court concluded that LVM had failed to demonstrate any likelihood of confusion.
On the trademark dilution claim, however, the Court rejected the district court's reasoning but reached the same conclusion through a different analysis. The Court first assessed LVM's claim for dilution by blurring, and ruled that LVM has failed to make out a case of trademark dilution by blurring by failing to establish that the distinctiveness of its marks was likely to be impaired by Haute Diggity Dog's marketing and sale of its "Chewy Vuiton" products. LVM also failed to demonstrate a claim for dilution by tarnishment. To establish its claim for dilution by tarnishment, LVM must show, in lieu of blurring, that Haute Diggity Dog's use of the "Chewy Vuiton" mark on dog toys harms the reputation of the LOUIS VUITTON mark and LVM's other marks. LVM argued that the possibility that a dog could choke on a "Chewy Vuiton" toy causes this harm. There was no record support, however, that any dog has choked on a pet chew toy, such as a "Chewy Vuiton" toy, or that there is any basis from which to conclude that a dog would likely choke on such a toy.
1. What happened in this case? What legal principles resolved the case?
2. What mistakes were made in this case -- and by who?
3. What business lessons can be learned from this case?
4. Are there any other interesting points, facts or research you want to share about this case?
Your entire answer should run a total of no longer than one to two pages (for all four questions combined). Each question can be addressed with a paragraph or two.