당신은 주제를 찾고 있습니까 “louis vuitton dak – [VIETSUB] BE’O (비오) – Counting Star | Show Me The Money 10/Ep.02 @Vòng loại 2 Full ver. | 211008“? 다음 카테고리의 웹사이트 you.pilgrimjournalist.com 에서 귀하의 모든 질문에 답변해 드립니다: you.pilgrimjournalist.com/blog. 바로 아래에서 답을 찾을 수 있습니다. 작성자 소확행 Sohwakhaeng 이(가) 작성한 기사에는 조회수 574,827회 및 좋아요 14,074개 개의 좋아요가 있습니다.
Table of Contents
louis vuitton dak 주제에 대한 동영상 보기
여기에서 이 주제에 대한 비디오를 시청하십시오. 주의 깊게 살펴보고 읽고 있는 내용에 대한 피드백을 제공하세요!
d여기에서 [VIETSUB] BE’O (비오) – Counting Star | Show Me The Money 10/Ep.02 @Vòng loại 2 Full ver. | 211008 – louis vuitton dak 주제에 대한 세부정보를 참조하세요
Báo chí Hàn gọi BE’O là \”phái thực lực\” đó mụi ngừi huhu… Màn singing-rap Counting star khiến cả 4 team Producer ngây ngất T_____T Nghe mê quá, ước zì BE’O ra audio… Cầu nguỵn…
*Note: “Louis Vuitton”, xin lỗi LV vì em để thiếu một chữ “t”
▶️ Original video: https://youtu.be/koXDAncb1V0
——–
Vietsub by Nguyễn Hoa @sohwakhaeng.h
▶️ Facebook: fb.com/sohwakhaeng.h
▶️ Youtube: youtube.com/소확행Sohwakhaeng
▶️ Ok.ru: ok.ru/video/c2722349
DO NOT RE-UP OR TAKE OUT!
#BEO #SMTM10 #ShowMeTheMoney10 #비오 #쇼미더머니10 #쇼미10 #sohwakhaeng
louis vuitton dak 주제에 대한 자세한 내용은 여기를 참조하세요.
Trademark Infringement: Case Study – IPR STUDIO
Louis Vuitton v. Louis Vuitton dak … This case law is one of an eal case study to study the concept of a trademark infringement as it entails a High-end …
Source: iprstudio.com
Date Published: 7/13/2022
View: 2619
Gà rán Louis Vuitton là có thật?
Được biết, nhà hàng Louis Vuiton Dak sử dụng cái tên nổi tiếng trên một phần vì yếu tố vui nhộn, và vì hai từ cuối cùng đọc là “tongdak”, trong …
Source: vietnamiplaws.com
Date Published: 9/9/2021
View: 3800
Louis Vuitton Fried Chicken in Korea fined for Rights …
“Louis Vuiton Dak.” (“dak” means chicken in Korean) even had a logo similar to that of the French fashion house, reports the Korea Herald –all …
Source: www.brandinginasia.com
Date Published: 8/12/2022
View: 2189
Everything You Need to Know About Trademark Infringement
Facts: French high-end leather goods retailer, Louis Vuitton, filed suit against a South Korean fried chicken, fast-food company named “Louis …
Source: www.brimlaw.com
Date Published: 3/16/2021
View: 1533
The end is nigh for Louis Vuitton fried chicken – Quartz
The man’s Seoul restaurant had originally been called “LOUIS VUITON DAK,” which is a play on a word that means “whole chicken” in Korean.
Source: qz.com
Date Published: 9/5/2022
View: 3135
Louis Vuitton – Food versus Fashion… – BananaIP
In a recent event, Louis Vuitton filed a case against “Louis Vuitton Dak” – a South Korean Fried Chicken Restaurant for trademark …
Source: www.bananaip.com
Date Published: 2/20/2021
View: 3172
주제와 관련된 이미지 louis vuitton dak
주제와 관련된 더 많은 사진을 참조하십시오 [VIETSUB] BE’O (비오) – Counting Star | Show Me The Money 10/Ep.02 @Vòng loại 2 Full ver. | 211008. 댓글에서 더 많은 관련 이미지를 보거나 필요한 경우 더 많은 관련 기사를 볼 수 있습니다.
![[VIETSUB] BE'O (비오) - Counting Star | Show Me The Money 10/Ep.02 @Vòng loại 2 Full ver. | 211008](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kV4G3Yu6BD8/maxresdefault.jpg)
주제에 대한 기사 평가 louis vuitton dak
- Author: 소확행 Sohwakhaeng
- Views: 조회수 574,827회
- Likes: 좋아요 14,074개
- Date Published: 2021. 10. 9.
- Video Url link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV4G3Yu6BD8
Louis Vuitton: don’t be a chicken!
Louis Vuitton: don’t be a chicken!
The case of South Korean restaurant vs. Louis Vuitton has been one of the most amusing legal debacles involving a major brand recently. This genuinely fun story that also seems to have more to it offers a great opportunity to explore the subjects of luxury brands, trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and last but not least, the dark depths of the human psyche.
Firstly, I wondered if anybody was surprised that the incident took place in South Korea. The story falls so neatly into stereotypes, it almost feels like it was made up by one of the nation’s competitors. It can’t be denied that we’re talking about no ordinary country. It has fans in seemingly all continents who revere it for its excellence in education and technology, style and pop culture, and general high-performance ethos. On the other hand, it famously has the second highest suicide rate, a shocking rank for a rich, industrialized nation. Less flattering depictions furthermore keep emphasizing the prevalence of plastic surgery, conformism, and authoritarianism in social interactions.
Everybody seems to agree however, that image in South Korea is no joke, and this is where we arrive at the source of the country’s abiding love for fashion and luxury. For decades, Western luxury brands have done extremely well in South Korea. The last third of the 20th century has been a period of miraculous economic growth, so in a sense, this is just another example of people gorging themselves in everything they couldn’t previously afford before acquiring money. If we wanted to illustrate the country’s prowess we could begin and end by pointing out that Samsung is Korean. Even more impressively, South Korea files more patents per GDP than anyone else, and it is regarded as the most innovative country in the world.
But let’s get back to the case. Essentially what happened is that a restaurant in Seoul pissed off Louis Vuitton by taking its name AND monogram pattern to sell chicken. It is known that Louis Vuiton Dak adopted the name at least in part due to the fun factor, as the last two words together read “tongdak”, the Korean word for “whole chicken”.
Looking at the snaps above, our first thought might be something like: “Why does chicken need monogrammed packaging?” It’s an imitation so total it’s astonishing, hilarious in its audacity. If we have some faith in humanity left, we conclude it’s a joke. Undoubtedly owner Mr. Kim is lightly poking fun at the snobby tendencies of his customers, telling them “I’ll give you what you want!” From a legal perspective it borders on trademark parody.
However, as humorous as this move was, it proved to be devastating. The wrath of Louis Vuitton soon reached the Korean business, and Louis Vuiton Dak was contacted by a court in Seoul. Threatened with large fines, Kim changed the name to “chaLouisvui tondak”. This was a big mistake, and he finally ended up paying a fine of 14.5 million KRW (about $125000).
The court ruling stated that even though the restaurant owner did slightly change the original name, it was still too similar. The fact that Louis Vuitton is a highly reputable brand with a big counterfeiting problem only made the situation worse for Mr. Kim. Even though the two businesses operated within different segments of the economy, as one was already a reputable trademark, the other was not allowed to use its name regardless. Generally speaking, the more reputable a trademark is, the more likely that a court will find there is a danger of infringement.
Read about similarly catastrophic business choices through the misadventures of Joe Loser in Georg Pintz’s “The Mark of Success”. Download now
This case is so odd, we’ve got to wonder what kind of process takes place in the consumer’s mind upon encountering Louis Vuiton Dak. The first and most obvious point is, that fast food and luxury fashion are worlds apart concerning prestige. Fried chicken is affordable, accessible, common – luxury fashion is sold as exclusive, aspirational, glamorous. The association of the two things clearly harms the prestige of the brand. Had the restaurant been allowed to continue under the name Louis Vuitton Dak, the reputation and distinctive character of the trademark would have been damaged.
At the same time, the monogram has a curious effect on the perception of the chicken – not thinking too much about it and just going with our gut, we don’t suspect the contents of that paper bag to be that bad. That is the power of association, and this is exactly why the evaluation of whether two trademarks are similar is based on the subjective perception of the “ordinary consumer” rather than on rigid rules. In principle, any one individual’s opinion on whether two things are similar doesn’t matter, the most common reaction does. Because of this latter effect on our perception, we have to wonder if there was a genuine attempt on the restaurant’s part to take unfair advantage of Louis Vuitton’s reputation for quality.
While we might not have wanted to see the Korean business destroyed, it’s not like Louis Vuitton was not deserving of a break either. Even among other European luxury brands, Louis Vuitton seems to possess a uniquely bittersweet fate. Across the world, it seems to have a hold on the imaginations of rich and poor alike. Stated simply, it is incredibly coveted. However, in today’s global marketplace protecting your brand is a fierce battle. The company reportedly reserves about €15 million on fighting counterfeiting every year.
A few years ago at the height of the global Louis Vuitton bag craze the company was not a clear winner. Thanks to the seemingly unprecedented counterfeiting efforts the company not only lost in profits, but the very key to their sweeping success, their brown monogram bags suffered severe losses in prestige, as millions of fakes flooded the streets.
For updates on authentic vs. counterfeit products follow our Instagram Click her to follow
For a bunch of copycats, the ingeniousness of coming up with multiple variations on the original pattern was impressive. The patterns used for counterfeiting seemed to have been strategically designed in such a way that although one or two components were subtly changed, as the overall impression remained similar, the changes were surprisingly inconspicuous.
In light of all this, Louis Vuitton’s exasperation and eagerness to crack down on infringement in understandable. Businesses fighting the counterfeiting of their products are in the right, and the Chinese government in particular should make no mistake that their lack of interest in upholding international law just because counterfeiting benefits their economy will always be an issue in their dealings with other countries.
See if anybody is infringing on your trademark with Sherlock – Fake Brand Investigation! Try now
Still, the way matters were handled here is frustrating. Kim was given a second chance, yet it ended up counting for nothing. Why did the quarrel have to come to such a severe end? Being threatened by a huge fine, Kim must have given a lot of thought to the new name before introducing it. If he was about to shoot himself in the foot again, why couldn’t anyone tell him?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, goes the saying. While we could certainly argue that it has to be this way, such a severe principle will inevitably have its victims. For one, it’s not forgiving towards humor, as we can see here. It also puts stress on the individual by requiring them to be vigilant, especially because many legal provisions have little common ground with the natural assumptions of the ordinary person. And while reportedly brands fine copycats in order to show the world that they will not put up with it rather than for financial reasons, for an ordinary person a $125000 fine is in no way “symbolic”.
Is a fine this size really meant to eliminate the likely possibility of another chicken joint stealing the name of Louis Vuitton, or is it simply an intimidation tool? Whatever we might think in this specific instance, one key thing to affirm to make sure life remains livable for common people is that the interests of companies are not equivalent with the interests of society as a whole, no matter how hard they might try to make us believe so.
But let’s examine Louis Vuitton’s standpoint. Recently in another trademark infringement case Louis Vuitton claimed that the LV monogram printed basketball that Hyundai featured in one of its commercials diluted the distinctiveness of the brand.
Although that might sound vague, they are right: the truth is, counterfeiting is not the only way to do harm to a luxury brand, overexposing it is enough, and if logo prints are anything like fashion trends, they respond predictably to it. Fashion trends thrive when the garments featuring it are well-made and hard to get. They get less exciting when a bunch of lower quality copies are offered by high street stores and they become an increasingly common sight in everyday life. Finally, they meet their death when through oversaturation they become ordinary, when they lose their distinctiveness as a style. When something loses its distinctiveness, it loses its meaning, i.e. all the emotional associations that go along with it.
The harm that is done to Louis Vuitton thus has to do with the perceptions and feelings of the consumer. At the moment, the LV logo canvas is associated with premium quality, unique products. If, however, we saw the logo everywhere from fried chicken to basketballs, not only would the pattern lose desirability through these new associations, but it would eventually feel like something ordinary. Louis Vuitton’s and other luxury brands operations to sell what are essentially pieces of fabric for the price of small houses only works if consumers feel like there is some meaning inherent in Louis Vuitton items that other products don’t have. Overexposure is death. I believe this is, above all else, why Louis Vuitton Dak had to give up the name.
Pintz & Partners
www.hupatent.com
www.trademark.eu
Trademark Infringement: Case Study
This case law is one of an ideal case study to study the concept of a trademark infringement as it entails a High-end luxury leather brand based in Paris which filed an infringement suit against South Korean fried chicken restaurant named Louis Vuiton Dak.
Which happened to sell its chicken in a packaging which was extremely similar and resembling that used by the luxury brand Lois Vuitton itself. It is of no doubt that the brand Louis Vuitton is a worldwide recognized brand which is purchased and endorsed by various top celebrities around the world. This brand has built its own brand value as a consequence of its excellent and high-grade product quality and design. Thus a South Korean restaurant which is though not related to the product line that of the trademark holder opens a restaurant with a deceptively similar name with an almost identically similar logo and packaging technique.
ABOUT THE PARTIES
1. Louis Vuitton – It is a company incorporated under the laws of France. It is a part of Meet Hennessy Louis Vuitton (LVMH) Group. Its products are advertised in various countries under the said trademark. In addition to the name “Louis Vuitton” as a trademark its initials “LV” as used as the trademark since 1890. It has a canvas design with a flower pattern and the inter-wined initials “LV”, known as a “Toile Monogram” and is in use since 1896.
2. Louis Vuiton dak – It is a South Korean fried chicken restaurant based in Seoul owned by Kim.
ISSUES
Whether the disputed Louis Vuitton dak name is similar to the Louis Vuitton trademarks, give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public within the meaning of Article 7 (10) [ Republic of Korea Trademark Act]
Whether the disputed name is similar to the Louis Vuitton trademarks, give rise to a link between the sign and the trademark in the mind of the average consumer, leading to unfair advantage being taken of the distinctive character or reputation of Louis Vuitton within the meaning of Article 7 (12) [ Republic of Korea Trademark Act]
Whether the use of LV’s ‘Toile Monogram’ in its food packaging amounts to trademark infringement and counterfeiting?
RULES
1. Article 230 Trademark Act (Republic of Korea)- Crime on Infringement- “Any person who infringes trademark rights or an exclusive license shall be punished by imprisonment with labor not more than seven years or by a fine not exceeding 1oo million won.”
2. Article 7 (10) (Republic of Korea Trademark Act)
“Any trademark which is feared to cause confusion with goods or services of other persons because the trademark is remarkably recognized among consumers to indicate the goods or services of other persons.”
3. Article 7 (12) (Republic of Korea Trademark act)
“Any trademark which is identical or similar to a trademark (excluding any geographical indication) recognized as indicating the goods of a particular person by consumers inside or outside of the Republic of Korea, and which is used for the unjustifiable purposes, such as obtaining unfair profits or inflicting harms on the particular person.”
JURISDICTION
Trademark registration with KIPO covers only the territory of South Korea. LV sued the restaurant in Seoul Central District Court.
ANALYSIS
The use of deceptively similar company names or designs is very common in the Asian market. In fact, there has been a rise in such activities due to the strong brand equity. In the present case chicken restaurant owner Kim named its restaurant “Louis Vuiton Dak”. Along with just removing ‘t’ from ‘Vuitton’, the owner also used the similar toile monogram on his food napkins and takeout packaging.
The owner of the restaurant played upon the Korean word ‘Tondak’ which literally means whole chicken and so chose to name his dish as Louis Vuitton Dak.
Let’s analyze the Reasons why Kim adopted a similar mark are first, easy start– South Korea is known for its inventive products and in the recent years there has been in a boost in the start-up companies along with style and pop companies. Entrepreneurs are looking forward to entering the market without much hassle and gain enormously by using other brand’s goodwill and reputation. The use of LV’S logo and its name by Kim was an act of a parasite. It attracted customers to itself and created wider recognition in the market on the basis of LV’s brand identity. This form of opportunism can either break or make a business depending upon the agility.
Lack of legal repercussions- We often come across products which use almost similar names like ABIBAS, POOMA which almost sounds and looks like ADIDAS and PUMA. Often these deceptive brands are a small-scaled business and are ignored. From Kim’s viewpoint, his small-scaled chicken restaurant was nothing when compared to the high-end luxury French brand.
Therefore the legal action against him and his eatery was minimal. It could have only faced legal scrutiny if his eatery would have gained popularity such that consumers were confused to think both the brands as one. Also, he could on a later date in case of any infringement action just change is products packaging and pay a nominal amount as damages but the objective to gain consumer market would have been accomplished by then.
Free marketing campaign- The more people became aware of the more coverage LV Dak gets. However in reality the success of a brand depends upon its goodwill and its esteem it has earned for past long years. A brand which tries to introduce a product with a copy-cat product will not survive in the long run.
Acquiring distinctiveness – the brand is the power of the organization. It is developed through marketing skills and giving the customers value for money. It takes years to develop it. LV invests in its humongous publicity globally. It sponsors its brands through advertisements and Magazines. It has been able to develop this reputation because of the high class-exclusive and limited edition designer products. This creates curiosity among consumers. The exclusivity of the product is associated with the style and elegance which makes it record-high sales all over the world.
Lack of Good Faith – The court did not believe that the act of Kim, owner of the restaurant decided to use mark LV was in good faith. In fact, he knowingly and without prior permission started using a mark that was dubiously similar to fashion LV to acquire market share. He knew about the pre-existing brand identity and to use this identity for his good was the sole motive.
Unfair Competition- A competition is said to be unfair when the defendants take a ‘free-ride’ on the plaintiff’s trade name. The party has obtained an advantage by an act of fraud or dishonesty. The purpose is to deceive or confuse the public either to attempt to replace other product or injure the business of the competitor. In the present case, the violation of Unfair competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act wherein Louis Vuitton dak has the cheated the rightful owner of the mark out profits. Dilution of the famous mark, also it has diluted the image of Louis Vuitton a fashion brand.
In Victoria’s Secret’s v Victor’s Little Secret case, a famous lingerie brand Victoria’s secret famous mark was tainted when a dupe brand Victor’s little secret through association.
Counterfeiting- If a person uses a trademark and affixes it to the goods or the packaging thereof and offers or puts them on sale in the market. In the luxury industry, originality and rarity are the two main components of success. So, when a counterfeit product is sold it is usually inexpensive, easily available such that the efforts put in by designers to make a unique product is squandered. It should be deceptively similar. In Reckitt & Coleman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and Warnick BV v Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd, the classic trinity was laid down. According to this three elements need to prove, first, the plaintiff has goodwill. Second, misrepresentation by the defendant. Third, damage due to the misrepresentation.
In the present case, Louis Vuitton has a global reputation built through years of honest work. It has been misrepresented by LV dak.
There has been damage caused to its image due to such misrepresentation. Thus, LV dak is liable for counterfeiting.
How to avoid counterfeiting?
-Counterfeit’s side – “Out of ignorance”
Mostly the counterfeiting takes place due to counterfeiter’s bad faith however there may be cases where it may be due to insufficient knowledge. Therefore to avoid counterfeiting one must search prior use of trademarks or domain names with the identical trademark or search for similarities. Since the impression of similar designs or exterior look may create confusion. Although this is a tiresome task it helps avoid infringement suits risk.
-Trademark Owner’s side:
Firstly, surveillance: With this, the trademark owner is informed of the deceptively similar trademark registrations.
Secondly, having a process in place: Having a clear method for processing an infringement suit, a lawyer and funds ready. Thirdly, go local: since each country has its different laws which become difficult to comply with.
COURT’S RULING
The court stated it is an accepted fact that Louis Vuitton has acquired a global brand image. Despite a slight change made by the restaurant owner to the original name, it was still quite similar. Although both the business operated in different market segments, as one was a highly reputed trademark the other cannot be allowed to use that and take undue advantage for it. The Court while deciding the case considered the long duration the mark was used for/infringed, the deliberate intention with respect to infringement activities. It must be said that the infringer should have relied on his own hard work and if so he would have acquired success without infringing the rights of LV.
In India, in the Amul case, the court held that by the virtue of continuous and extensive use, ‘Amul’ is recognized by the public to be associated with the Anand-based milk products. The adoption of the trademark Amul would not create confusion but would cause unnecessary inconvenience.
Relief granted: The court of Seoul, South Korea gave the judgment. It levied 1250 KRW fine on Kim for trademark infringement. He changed the name to “chaLouisvui tondak”. This was a bigger mistake and the court took it to be a non-compliance of courts order and therefore ordered the restaurant to pay 12750 KRW a day to fashion brand for 29 days i.e. till the date the amended name was displayed. Thus, a total fine of Rs. 14.5 million KRW (about 10 Lakh INR) was ordered to be paid.
DISCUSSION IN LIGHT OF SIMILAR CASES
3M v 3N
In June 2016, the Supreme people’s court of China gave a decision against the trademark infringer ordering 3n to cease the sale of the product and pay damages of Rs. 13 million far exceeding the statutory limit.
The case is about trademark infringement where 3M, an American multinational conglomerate corporation had its mark registered filed a petition before Zhejiang Higher People’s Court. In 2014, the HW’s product bears a mark ‘3N’ similar to ‘3M’. The product is also identical with respect to the use, function and target consumers. Secondly, when the consumer’s purchases such project they are less vigilant and they may possibly believe there is a link between the two products. Both the marks carried ‘CCC’ safety mark and had a similar red and white reflector tape. When an infringement related to trademark is analyzed important factors to be taken into consideration are distinctiveness, Reputation of the owner of the trademark and market share, good faith. 3M has established its distinctiveness in the reflector market with its wide product market in China also throughout the years 3M has created a brand image of its own.
Red bull v Big Horn
The case is based on the rights of the trademark holder. Red bull, a well-known mark for energy drinks, other beverages and bottled water filed a suit against Big horns for infringing its trademark. Since Bighorns was lesser-priced the use of a similar visual and conceptual form of the design by Big horns such that the consumers preferred big horns.
The court said the shift in demand had not been there had the Big horns not used the deceptive mark. So in quintessence it was ‘free-riding’ on the reputation of Red Bull.
Big horns took unfair advantage of the global reputation of Red Bull.
CONCLUSION
The act of LV restauarant chose to use a highly distinctive and well known registered trademark. This act is illegitimate and improper irrespective of the fact that the mark was later used for some time and acquired substantial goodwill in South Korea.
Therefore this is an act of foul play and obviously intentional.
If such trademark infringement activities are permitted to continue and no actions are taken against the infringer by the court then it will unquestionably encourage trademark infringers which contradicts the legislative purpose and aim of Trademark Act. If the two marks are allowed to co-exist it may create negative consequences with certain exceptions.
Brand Naming in Asia: IP Lessons from “LV Dak”
World famous luxury brand Louis Vuitton (LV) was awarded 14.5 million won ($12,500 USD, or 83,000 RMB) this April in a lawsuit with a Seoul fried chicken restaurant named “Louis Vuitton Dak”. The restaurant was first sued in September for Unfair Competition – using a name or packaging so similar to another brand that consumers think they are purchasing from a different company. This claim is fairly common across Asian markets, as some brands use copycat verbal or visual identities to benefit from an immediately strong Brand Equity that is recognized globally. In fact even after the lawsuit, the restaurant owner Kim changed the brand name to “chaLouisvui Tondak” – not exactly a reversal from the first copycat name. The courts slammed Kim with yet another fine and forced him to change the brand name for a second time.
It seems that even with regulatory bodies doing their utmost, no foreign brand is completely immune to the potential consequences from a knockoff. For foreign brands that are interested in global success, the question then becomes what can foreign brands learn from this IP case? As naming experts in one of the most complicated IP systems in the world, Labbrand is no stranger to evaluating legal risk. In this piece, we’ll take a look inside the potential logic of creating a rip-off brand, and how foreign businesses entering the Chinese market can mitigate the potential risks.
What Was Kim Thinking? Easy Start As start-up culture grows in Asia, entrepreneurs are always looking for a way to get a jump on the competition. Taking the free ride of LV’s brand and logo attracts immediate consumer attention and curiosity, thus gaining wider recognition for the business when it first opens its doors. In some countries this head start can make or break a business. After China opened its doors in 1978, for example, a great rush of entrepreneurship flowed in to from rural areas to urban cities, and only the quickest creators and adaptors saw commercial success. Agility is embedded into the business culture of many Asian countries. Lack of Legal Repercussions From Kim’s perspective his small-scale fried chicken restaurant was in no way noticeable to the international French luxury brand, so the risk of any legal action was low. If the eatery was to come under legal scrutiny, it would be an output of its size or popularity – which means the goal of quick growth was already achieved. Moreover, the fine amount for such cases is not very large. In the most extreme case, Kim’s restaurant may be asked to halt all its infringement activity. However, upon eradicating all infringed products and packaging and changing the logo, the eatery may return to normal operation. Long term legal consequences are mild. Free Marketing Campaign The most cyclical part of Kim’s situation is that the more coverage LV Dak gets, the more its awareness grows. At the time of this writing there were dozens of related articles visible on some of the most globally-recognized publications, including Yahoo, Vogue, Mashable, and NYmag. But growth in awareness does not necessarily mean a growth in brand equity. As we know from our Four Pillars of Brand Equity model, awareness – a sub-component of Relevance – cannot support a brand on its own. When a brand has high Relevance but no Differentiation, it lacks Brand Strength which is the foundation for long-term brand success. Furthermore as a copycat, the brand’s Esteem and Knowledge and unlikely to develop further, resulting in comparatively low measures of Brand Stature. A brand that focuses on copycatting will develop no long-term advantage and will not thrive in its market. This analysis is likely lost on the fried chicken restaurant, which has no ambitions of expanding beyond a “blip” in the market or building long-term brand equity.
So while copycat brands do exist, they are insignificant in the long term. Instead let’s focus on how to protect the brands that have created powerful Brand Equity on their own.
How can Foreign Brands Protect Themselves? While things will return to “business as regular” in Seoul, the consequences for Louis Vuitton are more serious: there is now a segment of consumers around the world who will think of fried chicken when they hear the name LV, likely not the association the French brand is seeking. Assuming the proper registration protocols are followed, how can foreign brands best handle and protect themselves in cases of IP Theft? Have a Process in Place Plan ahead. As a brand manager you hope you never have to encounter the ugly world of IP theft, but if you do, you must be well prepared with a plan ready to be deployed. One of the most important things about IP situations is the ability to quickly identify out a threat and to just as quickly remove it. As such, think about how you would handle the situation – who will be the project manager, how aggressive the firm will be, what channels will be used to neutralize the threat, and what law partner is best suited to handle the situation. Have a clear process in place and a partner that is ready to move quickly. Go Local A recent report published by UC Berkeley’s Center for the Study of Law and Society revealed that 12 new international law firms were established in China every year between 1992 and 2012, and that an optimal business model that included an outpost office involved in an international partnership. The conclusion? Stagnation of foreign firms can be an output of China’s unique political influence in the legal services market, prescribing the need for partnerships between Western and local partners. Legal systems differ by countries all over the world, and each country has its own specific rules and regulations that can be difficult to follow. No law partner will understand these processes better than one that is local to the market. Focus Efforts through One Body A common misconception for foreign brands is to focus on the Court system, as it is the most relatable to a western-style solution. However, in China the complex dimensions of the court system can make it more inaccessible. If a similar case of Unfair Competition had happened in the Chinese market, for example, the brand owner would usually complain to the Administration for Industry and Commerce (AIC) about the trademark infringement. The AIC will order the infringer to stop the act immediately, sequester all the infringing products, and remove the signboard with the infringing trademark or logo. More owners prefer to protect their rights through the AIC as it achieves roughly the same solution as the Courts, with less cost and time involved.
Gà rán Louis Vuitton là có thật?
Vụ kiện giữa một nhà hàng tại Hàn Quốc với thương hiệu thời trang xa xỉ Louis Vuitton là một trong những vụ kiện hài hước nhất liên quan đến thương hiệu lớn trong những năm gần đây. Vụ kiện thú vị trên cũng đã mang đến cơ hội tuyệt vời để khám phá các chủ đề liên quan đến những thương hiệu xa xỉ như vi phạm nhãn hiệu, hay vấn nạn hàng giả.
Trong nhiều thập kỷ, các thương hiệu xa xỉ phương Tây đã và đang kinh doanh rất hiệu quả tại Hàn Quốc. Bên cạnh đó, Hàn Quốc là quốc gia sở hữu tỉ lệ bằng sáng chế trên GDP rất cao, cũng như được coi là một trong những quốc gia sáng tạo nhất trên thế giới.
Mặc dù vậy, một nhà hàng tại thủ đô Seoul lại chọc giận Louis Vuitton bằng cách lấy tên và họa tiết trong nhãn hiệu của họ để quảng cáo cho sản phẩm gà rán của mình. Được biết, nhà hàng Louis Vuiton Dak sử dụng cái tên nổi tiếng trên một phần vì yếu tố vui nhộn, và vì hai từ cuối cùng đọc là “tongdak”, trong tiếng Hàn có nghĩa là “thịt gà”.
Ông Kim có vẻ đã sai khi nghĩ hành vi của mình là hài hước.
Nội dung vụ kiện
Nhìn vào bức ảnh trên, với những người có suy nghĩ tích cực một chút, họ sẽ kết luận đây là một trò đùa. Và ông Kim, chủ sở hữu của nhà hàng cũng vậy. Cụ thể, ông chỉ muốn đem lại niềm vui cho khách hàng bằng cách tạo ra những phần gà rán với thương hiệu xa xỉ. Nhưng xét theo góc độ pháp lý, việc làm của ông đã tiệm cận với hành vi xâm phạm nhãn hiệu.
Chưa biết hành động của ông Kim có thể mang lại niềm vui tới khách hàng hay không, nhưng ông đã có được sự phẫn nộ từ phía Louis Vuitton chính chủ, Louis Vuiton Dak của ông đã bị một tòa án ở Seoul đe dọa với số tiền phạt lớn. Vì vậy, ông Kim đổi tên nhà hàng của mình thành “chaLouisvui tondak”. Đây vẫn là hành vi xâm phạm nhãn hiệu theo tòa án, và cuối cùng, ông đã phải nộp phạt 14,5 triệu KRW (khoảng 125,000 đô).
Phán quyết của tòa án
Phán quyết của tòa án tuyên bố rằng mặc dù chủ nhà hàng đã thay đổi tên nhà hàng, nhưng cái tên đó vẫn còn quá nhiều điểm tương đồng với thương hiệu thời trang nổi tiếng. Việc Louis Vuitton là một thương hiệu có uy tín, nhưng lại đang phải đối mặt với vấn nạn hàng giả lớn đã khiến tình hình trở nên tồi tệ hơn đối với ông Kim, dù cho hai doanh nghiệp hoạt động trong các phân khúc khác nhau của nền kinh tế. Tựu chung lại, nhãn hiệu càng uy tín thì càng có nhiều khả năng bị tòa án phát hiện xâm phạm.
Ông Kim sẽ gây nhiều tổn hại tới uy tín của Louis Vuitton nếu tiếp tục sử dụng nhãn hiệu trên. Từ lâu, logo Louis Vuitton đã gắn liền với những sản phẩm có chất lượng cao và độc đáo. Tuy nhiên, nếu khách hàng nhìn thấy logo trên ở khắp mọi nơi, kể cả những phần gà rán, thì nhãn hiệu đó sẽ mất đi sự uy tín, và cuối cùng những sản phẩm xa xỉ của hãng sẽ giống như một thứ gì đó bình thường. Đó là lý do tại sao ông kim phải từ bỏ cái tên Louis Vuiton Dak và chịu hình phạt cho hành vi của mình.
-Scottie-
Louis Vuitton Fried Chicken in Korea fined for Rights Infringement
Sorry folks, your days of getting Louis Vuitton fried chicken in Seoul are likely numbered. This after a Seoul court fined a restaurant owner in Korea $12,750 on Sunday for his refusal to remove the Louis Vuitton name from his brand.
“Louis Vuiton Dak.” (“dak” means chicken in Korean) even had a logo similar to that of the French fashion house, reports the Korea Herald –all of which he used in his identity including take out boxes and napkins.
Granted, he did use only one “T” unlike the traditional spelling, but oh well.
Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit last year, calling for a ban on using its brand name for the chicken joint. The Seoul Central District Court agreed and ordered the owner to remove it from all his identity materials.
They additionally tagged him with a $450 a day fine until he complied.
The owner tried to sidestep the court order by adding the words “cha” and “ton” to his restaurant name, changing it to”chaLOUISVUI TONDAK,”
According to the Korea Herald:
His logic was that the previous “dak” meant chicken while “tondak” refers to a whole chicken. Kim argued that he had complied with the court ruling with his “brand new” restaurant name.
Louis Vuitton sued Kim again and the court ordered Kim to pay the French company 14.5 million won ($12,500) for the 29 days that the “new” name was displayed.
The court was having none of it.
“The (Korean) name, which plays an important role in making a distinction, is still read in the same way, so we cannot say that the new name lies beyond the scope of the court’s ban,” the court said.
Everything You Need to Know About Trademark Infringement
Everything You Need to Know About Trademark Infringement
Are you developing a brilliant product or service?
Have you created a fun logo or moniker that represents your product or service?
Think you’re ready to sell it on the open market?
Well, not so fast. Here’s the problem : Someone else may have a similar product or service already on the market. In addition, they may have trademarked it. I’m sure that your particular product or service is innovative and unique in its own way, and may even be the next-big-thing. However, let’s discuss everything you need to know about trademarks and trademark infringement before your brand paddles too far into the “deep sea market.”
1. What is a trademark?
A trademark is a “word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others” (United States Patent and Trademark Office). Some examples include a business’ name, slogan, and logo.
Most people are unfamiliar with the term “service mark,” which is closely related to “trademark.” Typically, business owners treat and refer to service marks as if they are trademarks, but a service mark is “a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than goods .”
2. What is trademark infringement?
Trademark Infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark in association with a good or service in such a way that’s likely to cause confusion about the source of the good or service. In other words, a customer or client would be confused about which company is offering the product or service (also known as a “likelihood-of-confusion”). If your company sells crispy-lime taco shells in the grocery store, you don’t want customers to be misled into buying a competitor’s crispy-lime taco shells because the competitor uses a similar logo or slogan on their packaging.
3. What happens if you are sued for trademark infringement?
It isn’t pretty. Among other unpleasant sanctions, you can be hauled into court and held liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, you could be required to destroy your products or marketing materials that use the prohibited word, phrase, or symbol. You could also be required to hand over any profits you gained from the sale of those goods and services associated with the trademark (not to mention paying for the trademark owner’s court costs and attorneys’ fees).
4. What does trademark infringement look like?
Like any other legal matter, not all trademark infringement cases look the same. Here are some real-life case studies involving trademark infringement allegations.
LOUIS VUITTON VS. LOUIS VUITON DAK (2016)
Facts: French high-end leather goods retailer, Louis Vuitton, filed suit against a South Korean fried chicken, fast-food company named “Louis Vuiton Dak.”
Ruling: The court held the South Korean restaurant liable (fined $1250) for trademark infringement because the name was too similar to Louis Vuitton’s name. Furthermore, the fried chicken was wrapped in packaging with the iconic LV symbol.
Perhaps, Louis Vuitton wasn’t a fan of fried chicken. Unfortunately, this story doesn’t end here. After the ruling, the restaurant changed its name to “Louisvui tondak.” This subtle rearrangement of letters was deemed to be too similar to the letter arrangement in “Louis Vuitton.” The restaurant was fined again ($14.5 million dollars) for non-compliance.
Image Source: Trademark.eu
ADIDAS VS. FOREVER 21 (2015)
Facts: Athletic retailer, Adidas, sued women’s clothier, Forever 21, for using its “three stripe” design on a collection of Forever 21 sweatshirts. Adidas argued that it invested millions of dollars to protect its trademark over the years.
Ruling: Adidas voluntarily dismissed the case, which indicates the matter was likely settled outside of court.
Image Source: thefashionlaw.com
5. Can a trademark owner sue someone for infringement in state or federal court?
Yes, a trademark owner may file in either court. However, most plaintiffs choose federal court. In many instances, trademark infringement cases are removed from state to federal court.
*Georgia statutes (and a line of cases) governing trademarks and trademark infringement closely follow federal trademark law.
6. What should I do if someone is using my trademark?
First, it’s imperative to sit down with an experienced attorney to help you (1) determine whether you actually have an infringement case, (2) analyze the facts and issues involved, and (3) determine the least expensive way to protect your rights.
Because of “common law” rights, you are not required to register your trademark in order to have exclusive rights to the use of your trademark. However, a trademark infringement case is far more successful if your trademark has been registered with the USPTO. Without registration, you lose several benefits and advantages like a legal presumption that you are the valid/real owner of the mark with exclusive rights to it.
Registering your mark sooner rather than later also gives the world notice that you are the owner of the mark. Working with an attorney early on to register your mark may also help you avoid infringing on someone else’s mark because a comprehensive trademark search is involved before actually registering a client’s mark.
Your Thoughts: Have you ever tried trademarking your logo or slogan? What do you wish someone would have told you before you started the process on your own?
This article is intended to provide you with general information; it does not constitute any type of legal advice. For recommendations related to your specific matter, we encourage you to review our Practice Areas page for additional information and then contact us to discuss your company’s legal needs.
The end is nigh for Louis Vuitton fried chicken
Louis Vuitton has won a lawsuit in South Korea, where, for the last several months, it has been in a courtroom tango with a restaurant owner accused of use the company’s name to sell fried chicken, Agence France-Presse reports. A judge has penalized the owner $12,500 for refusing to comply with an earlier order to stop using the luxury brand name and printing a similar logo on his napkins and takeaway cartons.
The man’s Seoul restaurant had originally been called “LOUIS VUITON DAK,” which is a play on a word that means “whole chicken” in Korean. He then changed it to “chaLouisvuitondak.” That didn’t satisfy Louis Vuitton, which complained that the name sounded almost identical and that the association with fried chicken was damaging to its brand.
To be sure, this isn’t the first time a big-name luxury brand has gone after a restaurant for its name.
The Rolex Deli in Brooklyn was sued by the luxury timepiece company in 2011 for attaching its name to its shop. It was sued again two years later after renamed itself Roll-x Deli. In 2014, luxury jeweler Faberge took issue with a restaurant—also in Brooklyn—called the Faberge Restaurant and Lounge. That place not only used the jeweler’s name, but also tried to mimic its storefront style.
Louis Vuitton – Food versus Fashion…
Louis Vuitton is one of the world’s largest fashion brands whose trademark LV is famous across the globe. In a recent event, the fashion brand filed a case against “Louis Vuitton Dak” – a South Korean Fried Chicken Restaurant for trademark infringement on the grounds of confusing similarity in the trademarks.
According to the Korean Times – the logo of the chicken restaurant bears a close resemblance to that of original luxury brand – Louis Vuitton’s logo. In September 2015 this case was taken to court alleging the violation of “Unfair competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”. The subject matter of this Act under the Korean Law includes Competition, Domain Names, Enforcement of IP and Related Laws, Geographical Indications, IP Regulatory Body, Trade Names, Trademarks, Undisclosed Information (Trade Secrets).
As a follow up on the charges against Kim who apparently played around with the Korean word “Tondak” which literally means whole chicken and so chose to name his dish as Loius Vuitton Dak, the district court ordered him to pay $440 per day as damages to the brand name. Notwithstanding the injunction from the court he brought about a slight change in the restaurant’s name to chaLouisvui tondak which according to Kim bore no much resemblance to the French fashion brand.
Louis Vuitton was adamant on change in the name to be brought about and so appealed again and the Seoul Central District Court ordered the restaurant owner to pay close to $12,750 a day to the fashion brand for 29 days that the amended name was displayed.
While the decision in the case is good news to the fashion brand as the decision restores the brands confused image in the Korean market, the misadventure has costed the South Korean restaurant dearly. The restaurant is not only paying in terms of externality cost but also faces the problem of losing some customers because of the case.
Kim, the owner of the restaurant has seemed to have been oblivious to the presence of such an international brand in the market whose image the restaurant could have tarnished. But this is only one of the many defenses that are usually taken up by trademark infringers. Well, Louis vuitton after the decision in this case is most likely to agree with the saying that ‘Food is good but Fashion is the measure of passion’ .
Authored by Gopika Sandes
Reference – Here
키워드에 대한 정보 louis vuitton dak
다음은 Bing에서 louis vuitton dak 주제에 대한 검색 결과입니다. 필요한 경우 더 읽을 수 있습니다.
이 기사는 인터넷의 다양한 출처에서 편집되었습니다. 이 기사가 유용했기를 바랍니다. 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오. 매우 감사합니다!
사람들이 주제에 대해 자주 검색하는 키워드 [VIETSUB] BE’O (비오) – Counting Star | Show Me The Money 10/Ep.02 @Vòng loại 2 Full ver. | 211008
- 동영상
- 공유
- 카메라폰
- 동영상폰
- 무료
- 올리기
YouTube에서 louis vuitton dak 주제의 다른 동영상 보기
주제에 대한 기사를 시청해 주셔서 감사합니다 [VIETSUB] BE’O (비오) – Counting Star | Show Me The Money 10/Ep.02 @Vòng loại 2 Full ver. | 211008 | louis vuitton dak, 이 기사가 유용하다고 생각되면 공유하십시오, 매우 감사합니다.
