LVL XIII Brands, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA et al.

Reply Brief In Support of LVL XIII's Summary Judgment Motion for Trademark Infringement

Ronald Coleman

From the Preliminary Statement:

"Hewing to the axiom that the best defense is a good offense, in opposing the motion for summary judgment by plaintiff LVL XII Brands, Inc. (“LVL XIII”) defendants Louis Vuitton Malletier SA and Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. (collectively, “Louis Vuitton”) are at pains to portray themselves as the aggrieved parties here. More than this, they seem to pretend offense by the very proposition of litigation over claims of trademark infringement. In fact, however, Louis Vuitton is a serial litigator in this Court, entitled to its own docket by virtue of the multiplicity of lawsuits it has brought against a host of entities for alleged infringement of its trademarks rights – claims which, like its counterclaim here, have all gone nowhere.

"Defendants’ withdrawal of Count V of their counterclaim, based on New York’s deceptive business practices under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 349, is certainly a step in the right direction. If not for their track record of prosecuting meritless trademark claims, that step would be all the more puzzling given the persistence with which they nonetheless grind on with their four remaining claims. There is no obvious reason for dropping one and keeping the others, for in their opposition to plaintiff’s motion defendants raise no material issues of fact; rely on conclusions based on inapposite authorities where they even respond to the dispositive legal arguments raised by plaintiff’s citations and otherwise mainly avoid virtually every critical point in LVL XIII’s moving papers concerning the obvious meritless of their make-weight counterclaim. Given Louis Vuitton’s failure on these scores, LVL XIII’s motion to dismiss those counterclaims should be granted in its entirety."

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info: Legal Memoranda: Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication | Federal, 2nd Circuit, New York | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ronald Coleman, Dhillon Law Group, Inc | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ronald Coleman

Dhillon Law Group, Inc on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.