Louis Vuitton Malletier wins trademark infringement lawsuit to be awarded TWD9.08 million damages

　Louis Vuitton Malletier filed a lawsuit with the IP Court to claim damages of TWD30 million against a locally well-known auction group, Bang Master Group (hereinafter “Bang Master”) by the reason that Bang Master took a free ride on Louis Vuitton Malletier’s business reputation by, without Louis Vuitton Malletier’s prior consent and authorization, using Louis Vuitton Malletier’s photographic works and LV mark in the books and teaching materials published by Bang Master and also posters; even the drawing of LV bags appeared on the doors of Bang Master’s stores.  The IP Court sustained Bang Master’s infringement upon Louis Vuitton Malletier’s trademark right and copyright and thus awarded damages of TWD9,080,000 to Louis Vuitton Malletier.  The awarded damages are payable by Bang Master and its responsible person, LI Zheng-Bang, etc..  

　According to Louis Vuitton Malletier, Bang Master, without the Louis Vuitton Malletier’s prior consent and authorization, used Louis Vuitton Malletier’s photographic works of its LV products and LV mark in Bang Master’s books, promotional posters for the auction, teaching materials, advertising cards, and also its storefront door.  

　Bang Master’s responsible person, LI Zheng-Bang defended himself by saying that it is impossible for him, as a responsible person, to personally take care of every single matter of his company nor instruct any employee to use the pictures of LV products.  He also maintained that anyone can take pictures of the arrangement and decoration of LV stores and bags.  In addition, the books he published are to help people on how to identify counterfeit LV products, which only brings benefits to LV products, not infringement.  LI Zheng-Bang denied the unauthorized mark use alleged against him.  

　The IP Court determined that Bang Master infringed upon Louis Vuitton Malletier’s copyright and trademark right and rendered a judgment against Bang Master.  This case is appealable.  (August 2018)  

/CCS