Simple Living CampaignLouis Vuitton has proven in the past that they do not take it lightly when their intellectual property rights are violated. Evidence of this is the recent lawsuit in which Louis Vuitton successfully sued Sony BMG and MTV online. Louis Vuitton is now suing Nadia Plenser, a Danish student artist and designer, over her “Simple Living” campaign, a fundraiser that benefits the Divest for Darfur organization.

Plenser drew an image of a young Darfur child holding a Tinkerbell-like dog and sporting a designer bag, made to resemble the famous Louis Vuitton’s Murakami Multicolore canvas pattern. Her goal was to imitate the constant media coverage that celebrities like Paris Hilton were getting and giving it to those who really deserved and needed it. Her image has been selling on t-shirts and posters, raising money for the good cause.

Problem is, LV is not exactly fond of the campaign, despite 100% of Plenser’s profits are being donated straight to Divest for Dafur. Vuitton sent her a C&D letter in February, which was followed by a lawsuit on April 15th:

Louis Vuitton now demands $7,500 (5,000 Euro) for each day she continues to sell Simple Life products, $7,500 for each day their letter is published on the website and $7,500 a day for using the name ‘Louis Vuitton’ on her website. In addition they want her to pay their lawyer costs and $15,000 to cover other expenses they have incurred in protecting their ‘intellectual property’.

How do you feel about this lawsuit? Property rights infringement and defending of LV’s trademark or artist’s freedom of expression and frivolous lawsuit?

Read the full story on TorrentFreak.

P.S. Please consider supporting our small, bag-loving team by clicking our links before shopping or checking out at your favorite online retailers like Amazon, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, or any of the listed partners on our shop page. We truly appreciate your support!

Share Your Thoughts With Us

  • Kaytey

    I think that’s incredibly ridiculous. I was looking into buying some of LVs new summer line with the over-sized patterns, but this ticks me off. She picked the LV-esque logo because it’s recognisable. And if they sent her a letter, she can do whatever the feck she likes with it. It’s not even an actual LV logo. I see rip-offs of that logo everywhere that are perfectly legal, why would they target a charity other than to be greedy dinks?

    Shame on LV.

    • Melissa Amark

      This story is so bad, this is only for a good cause, I will never buy again any LV bag, Fuck LV!!!

  • MrsC

    This is a tricky one. I believe in freedom of expression and this is a powerfull image that definately gets the point across and is for a very worthy cause. That said, the image does put a lot of negative focus on Louis Vuitton very specifically and quite frankly on people who carry Louis Vuitton bags and have Chihuahuas for that matter as well. It is easy to judge people and lump them all together as a whole with a negative spin. I personally own both a Louis Vuitton bag, which I worked very hard for and a Chihuahua. I love my dog very much, she is my companion and my responsability and is not simply an accessory. I don’t think my level of generosity or priorities should be judged by my handbag. I did not come by either of these “things” dishonestly and would not accept being made to feel like I did. I do not think it is a personal attack and I am not offended, but yes, I do think louis Vuitton has the right to protect their intellectual property.

  • Serene

    The designer has only drawn a handbag that looks like an LV bag, there is no mention of “LV” anywhere. Besides, the effort of the designer is for a good cause. LV’s move displays poor PR and poor social responsibility. LV suing the designer, to me, is synonymous with Macdonald’s suing someone who has drawn a hamburger wrapper in a paper with “W” printed on it.

    I have not bought any LV handbags, because tried as hard as I had, I just do not like their designs, especially the brown canvas ones with LV printed all over. With this lawsuit, I will definitely not purchase one in the future. In fact, I have just placed an order for the designer’s T-shirt. The good thing about this lawsuit is that it has raised even more awareness for the cause.

  • lee

    This is so stupid. She is using their logo for a good cause!! UGH this makes me sooo mad! LV should use their energy to do something useful like the artist did. :mad: im boycotting!

  • Vernonic Sanchez

    Great topic!
    I agree with the artist! I think it is smart and brilliant marketing and the perfect way to get attention for her cause.
    Personally, I am a total handbag diva and a luxury goods consumer – however – I think this campaign for Darfur is a great cause and a good way to get attention!
    Additionally, Louis Vuitton has NO CASE. The law indicates that the product must be off (not exactly replicated) by 20%. It looks like this bag is supposed to be the Louis Vuitton Audra with the Murikami print – however, the shape is a bit off and there is absolutely no Louis Vuitton logo.
    …Also, I love the fact that is a dig toward the always obnoxious Paris Hilton – too funny! So clever!

  • Kathy

    I don’t see the image as being negative towards LV or people who carry LV bags (and chihuahuas). I think the image is an indictment of media driven “celebrity culture” that a large portion of our society tends to focus on. I think the artist is trying to let us know how ridiculous it is to be solely obsessed over what celebrities are doing when we should be more aware of what is going on in the rest of the world. I think LV’s lawsuit does a disservice to our society and I do not support it.

  • Jahpson

    ok, what the fcuk is up with that logo?

    very distasteful and offensive!! thumbs down!!!!!!!!!!!! :evil:

  • jnh14

    This is totally ridiculous on LV’s part…like they don’t make multi-millions off their line now. You’d think that they’d be willing to help the people of Darfur; instead they come off as greedy and obnoxious. Although it figures that it’s a French company. If we Americans ever give them a nickel, or any help in the event of another war-I’ll flip. After all we did for them during WWII-and they snub Americans now. :evil:
    On another note-I think it’s a hoot that they are making it resemble Paris-that’s the image she puts out there for all of us to see…”Look at me-I have so much money I can do whatever I want.”

    • chloehandbags

      I really don’t think dragging WWII into this is going to get us anywhere, is it?

      BTW, the US didn’t just join the war to help the French, it joined the war to prevent the world domination that the Nazis and the Japanese were concocting together (including the invasion of the US).

      Remember Pearl Harbour?

      If the US’s main intention in entering the war was just to help the French, they would have, presumably, done it a lot sooner.

      Now, please can we keep this on topic? :smile:

      • chloehandbags

        Sorry, Pearl Harbor, not Pearl Harbour.

        I always forget that people from the US spell the word differently to people from the UK. :oops:

      • dela

        It doesn’t matter how you spell it, we got your point. This blog is open to all of the world and readers are able to make sense of these things on their own without any explanation. May be, you just wanted to point out the you were not an American.
        But, I do think you offer a fair assessment of WWII.

      • jnh14

        I’m entitled to my opinion just as your are-chill out. Have you spent time in France of late?

      • Kaytey

        I agree with chloehandbags. I’ve lived in France on and off for years – it’s a beautiful country, and the people are wonderful, believe it or not. It’s not being French that’s the problem, it’s being corporatist.

    • Dolphin-chick

      If France hadn’t helped us out in the Revolutionary War, we wouldn’t even BE a country. And Americans can be every bit as snotty as the French can be.

      That said, I think LV is acting way out of line here. While meant to closely resemble the bag, it’s not the exact piece, no where is there the “LV” logo. I’ve seen better “designer-inspired” bags in mall kiosks. The artist was only trying to convey a message about our overly capitalist society and LV just validated her point. Thousands of people have been killed, women and girls have been brutally assaulted and beaten, people are starving, and when someone tries to help, all Louis Vuitton cares about is how much money they can bilk out of her.

      I’ve always thought Louis Vuitton’s bags were ugly, but I see the corporation’s character resembles my opinion of their product.

  • ahertz

    Louis Vuitton is now on my “boycott forever” list…a shame because they could have gotten positive press for backing the project.

  • chloehandbags

    I’ve never liked Louis Vuitton and this makes me like them even less. :mad:

    In a world full of chronic poverty, how petty can one, obscenely rich, company be?


  • Lynda

    Yeah, I agree with most of the other posters — LV should chill!

  • bvbirdygirl

    while i totally agree that lv is totally over reacting, that they should spend their money on better things, and by doing this, they will lose their customers respect, its not all them…

    i think that the artist should have considered the fact that she is insulting the people who love louis vuitton, and also insinuating that they don’t care about the poor children of the world.

    these are also the people with the money to actually do something about it and help make a significant change.

    i am not in any way claiming that every person with expensive things is a caring advocate for the end of poverty, but everyone has a right to live their life to the fullest while still helping others. Just because someone has money doesn’t mean that they are obligated to live in a grass hut and give it all away to charity. They were fortunate enough to either just have it, of have the opportunity to work for it. It is their choice how they spend it, and of course, it is always nice to spend money on a charitable fund.

    i think that instead of insulting her potential donors, she should have tried to just
    appeal to the majority of all people.

    • gopher

      I don’t think that the artist was trying to insult people who carry LV handbags. I think the message is trying to show that there is more attention given to celebrities issues rather than the serious life and death issues of people from other countries. Look at this piece as if the little boy were thinking, “Do I have to be a celebrity to gain your attention?”

  • morgan

    Won’t be buying an LV anytime soon. Shame because I love the new water color collection and was seriously considering getting one.

    I think if anything they should donate even a small amount to the cause to show that they are good sports

  • LH

    I think this lawsuit will just give people a negative image of LV because it’s easily interpreted as an act of uncaring corporate aggression. Maybe LV does have a legitimate lawsuit in hand, but even so, they should consider the PR aspect of it. People don’t like hearing about corporations attacking and stepping all over non-profit causes (esp. those with really good intentions). If anything, this may make LV look snobbish. This one sounds like it’s going to cause a big commotion.

  • Melanie

    For such a rich company this sure makes them look like a bunch of morons. By making this into a lawsuit they are proving the artist right. They care more about their luxury handbags and how they are perceived then they do about dying people. If LV had smart PR people they would donate a bunch of money to this cause, publicly thank the artist for helping them get involved in the cause and look like the good guy instead of the greedy people they are.

  • Anna

    Shame on LV!

    As a designer I have no issue with companies suing for real trademark and infringment, and I fully support the prosecution of counterfitters. But to go after an an artist who is using imagery that is inspired by their print in an illustrationthat is FOR A CHARITY is ridiculous.

    A general rule of thumb for not violating tademark is to make 7 changes to a design… including color and size. Clearly, that is not a real LV pattern.

    They’ve lost a fan here.

  • Krista

    Trademark is trademark. I don’t think that LV should jump on the lawsuit bandwagon all willy nilly, but the silly girl shouldn’t have started selling something with the LV logos all over it. She could’ve drawn a Birkin without any obvious branding and probably got away with it, but this is too obvious. Plus, it’s a dig at LV and it’s pretty obvious that they wouldn’t like it so much. :roll:

    • PurseFanatic

      Sorry but I agree with LV, what gives her the right to use an obvious representation of an LV bag in her campaign? I got the point of who it was supposed to be making fun of just from the dog, I can understand using a popular shape, like a Birkin, but she is obviously wanting to associate LV with the image. Hence the multicolor design.

      Maybe this is for a good cause, but just like everyone else in the world, LV does NOT have to be associated or involved with any cause it does not want to be involved in. There are several charities I do not give to only because there are certain other charities that have directly affected my life. Why should they be forced to let someone use their branding? I say go LV!

  • mave

    the artist has to pick an image that is popular and recognisable in order to convey her message. If its not an LV-lookalike, it would be a birkin-lookalike.

  • PinkHappy

    I think they had to do something to get her to withdraw the image as it undercuts the whole point of luxury handbags. It’s a “shame on you” message to all who carry them. But I object more to the objectification of suffering naked Darfur refugees (why are African victims always depicted naked?) than the appropriation of LV for a “shame on you” message. Tisk-tisk all you want about buying LV and carrying a toy dog, but depicting an African as the curious Other worthy of a t-shirt makes me uncomfortable. This is classic Noble Savage imagery. You wouldn’t see that kind of imagery to draw attention to suffering Europeans. It’s kind of weird to me that Darfur has become trendy. I support help for Darfur, I support celebrities and artists giving back, but I’m a bit uncomfortable turning their plight into a celebrity-fashion conversation. If that’s what it takes to get the world’s attention, they could at least let them have their dignity. The image looks like the Christmas Poo from Southpark. LV would be better off licensing their logo or working with the charity to create a Darfur bag with proceeds going to the cause with the stipulation that the people benefiting from the outreach be treated with more respect. As a sistah, the drawing bugs me.

    • dela

      Nicely put. I agree.

    • Shivadiva

      PinkHappy – I totally agree.

    • Kaytey

      I see your point, but I have to disagree. Let me say first off that I am white, so there’s no denying that I’m probably less sensitive to visible ethnic minority issues than you, but I still think the following argument is valid:

      To begin with, many young children in impoverished African nations do run around naked. This image is not suitable to present Europeans because Europeans don’t generally let their kids out of the house naked. This is not a good or bad thing for either party, it’s representative of the difference between the two cultures, and that’s the focus here. “We” as Westerners are meant to see this African child as the Other because it highlights how our actions and choices affect others. It also makes the image much more jarring. The contrast between the luxury goods and the child is evident. This is not “noble savage” imagery, it does not depict the child’s life as “meaning well, but primitive.” It depicts his or her life as different (the gender ambiguity is probably intentional). And, despite your own race, being a North American or European person means that you have just as little in common with that child as anyone else posting here. Let’s not essentialise here – skin colour is not a universal uniter, just like gender.

  • windowshopping

    They should be ashamed.

    That’s beyond out of line.

  • Rach

    On one hand, I can see LV’s point in not wanting someone to make money off of the image of their product. Legally, they might argue a claim.

    But this is horrific PR for their line and makes them look awful. At the end of the day, if they leave this campaign alone, it’s certainly not going to hurt their brand any more than some of the trashy celebs that we’ve seen carrying their products.

  • estella149

    I understand why she created this image in the first place. I understand the message that she was trying to send, and her cause is a noble one. However, LV did ask.. and very nicely really, for her to remove their likeness well before they ever took the steps to file a lawsuit.
    I think that if she were that concerned about the charity.. and that concerned about the focus being on the cause.. that she would have stopped when she received the letter.
    However, now, she is making this all about “her” and “her artistic expression”. Her focus is no longer on the charity.. and she’s dragging their name into this whole ordeal, which I feel is very unfortunate.
    I think originally, this was a positive effort, but has simply become a way for her to make a name for herself.
    LV has a responsibility to protect the image it has created, and this campaign does have a negative connotation.
    Was it worth the risk to make the brand appear as though they are “suing a charity”? Maybe not.. but I think anyone who looks into the brand further will see the charity work they do, and will not be adversely affected.

  • Jamie

    In all honesty when I look at the bag I realized it was an LV but the connotation that came to my mind was “materialism and spending money on myself when there more important things to spend money on.”
    The fact that “Hey thats a Louis that the kid is holding and they represent materialism so now I won’t but a Louis” didn’t come to mind.
    It never even occurred to me that this could hurt LV sales and I truly don’t think it will. If you are going to buy a purse for 600++ you are going to buy your favorite purse regardless of what charity is bashing your luxury item.
    (PETA bashes leather and exotics all the time with their harsh vidoes and charitable functions but that doesn’t mean any of you will stop buying the purses).
    I know that if there was an RM wine matinee hanging on her arm that wouldn’t prevent me in the least from buying one the moment I get an option to.

    I feel like I am not explaining this in a coherent way :???:

  • Abigail

    Whether the image looks like the LV symbol is beside the point.

    Let’s just assume that it was TM infringement, the money goes to needy people in a war-ravaged region for pity’s sake. Profit is profit, but c’mon LV execs, look into your presumably still-beating, non-zombie hearts. Not everything is about money…

    • PurseFanatic

      So an illegal act should be brushed aside just because it was “for a good cause?”

      That’s along the same lines of letting people steal and pillage during times of weather disasters because they were hungry. Come on…

      • Abigail

        I hardly think these two things are the same. And please, for once can we focus on the actual situation instead of using random analogies and “slippery slope” arguments?

        All I’m saying is: LV, get your priorities straight.

        (I’ll give you this: I may be a bit biased. In comparison to a mom-and-pop store, LV is not exactly the most sympathetic victim.)

      • PurseFanatic

        It’s hardly a random analogy, it’s the same thing, she is stealing from one thing to justify another. It’s collectively called morals.

      • Mzkyie

        I agree with Pursefanatic 100%. I get sick when people use the “ends justify the means” excuse. No matter who you’re helping, at the end of the day you still did something illegal. As harsh as it sounds, it’s reality. There are better ways to gain attention for a charity, without using the likeness of a multinational brand (such as LV) for leverage. As an artist myself, I tried so hard to side with her, but unfortunately I can’t.

      • Abigail

        I get what you mean. As soon as you said “ends justify the means” I got scary war-justification flashbacks. As much as I (rogue that I am) embrace the idea of “steal from the rich to give to the poor”, I admit that I wouldn’t like to live in a lawless society. So I do think you guys also have a valid point.

        Can’t guarantee that I won’t buy just one t-shirt from the artist, though *wink*

  • dela

    Isn’t it ironic that a noble and “non-profit” cause will ultimately lead to this artist being rich and famous in the long run.

  • Kathy

    As I said above I don’t think this is a “shame on you for owning an LV bag” image at all. I think it is a “shame on you for only caring about material goods” image. There is a big difference. It doesn’t matter if you carry an LV or a no-name bag, you can still be a good global citizen and be involved in making the world a better place. I think is image is protesting mindless consumerism and is trying to encourage more people to think about what is going on in the world. It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t buy a LV bag….(although this lawsuit is a good reason not to) but that you should be thinking about others things than your next LV bag.

  • katkooty

    Well, i dont think she was using the logo to diss LV owners but to portray a celebrity like Paris Hilton (thats the point of this isnt it, that too much attention is on them when it would be more helpful if its on the less fortunate).

    Also, ive seen rip off bags like this, that dont quite use the logo(like in this case) but its exactly the same bag. So why attack a good cause. I think this made LV look really greedy and i am honestly turned off.

    Dubai previously had a Dubai Cares campaign where they showed a designer bag along with “Designer bag $2000, Books for 1200 school children in India, $2000”. I think this was more of “look at what your spending” than this campaign.

    Oh LV should be honored, their bag was used probably cause it would be the most recognizable to the masses not to diss owners or discourage future buyers ! imagine if she used a YSL downtown, not exactly the same effect.

  • cutejack

    I’m finished with LV. They make me sick.

  • laylalove

    I don’t think Plesner’s Darfur campaign is trying to attack anyone carrying LVs (or chihuahuas) and as far as putting bad images toward LV customers, by filing this lawsuit against somebody who is trying to do a good cause LV is the one doing the damage now. I refuse to carry LV now not because the bag is seen to be carried by a Darfur child on t-shirts and posters, but because LV’s negative attitude toward this campaign is embarrassing.

  • ginag

    Wow — being willing to sue someone who’s trying to help the plight of a people plagued by genocide who are being ignored by the media, because they’re using an approximation of their logo?

    that’s hot.


    I don’t think it’s right of LV to sue a student who’s using there name to try to help people. on the other hand, it’s LV’s right to approve what there name is used for. And if they think that this campaign will scare people of buying there labels, I do understand LV. /

  • SereneO

    I think the artist is being silly by not pulling out and I do understand where LV is coming from by filing that lawsuit. She could have used something else but she chose to be LV-inspired. If I wasn’t observing that drawing really carefully, I could have easily mistaken the pattern for the real MC monogram. And LV is coming down hard on anyone for abusing their intellectual property, which is of no surprise actually.

    Though it is for a good cause, I would say it was a classic case of ‘good intentions, but wrong method used”.

    So while I do support the campaign, I would not be buying any of the items cos it does not show support in the right spirit but more of controversy now. And I do think LV has a case.

    • Maria

      I totally agree with you!

  • Lemonhead130

    It seems to me that the artist had plenty of notice that LV was not taking kindly to her use of their brand likeness. Perhaps some sort of agreement could have been worked out that she could sell through what stock she currently had at the time she received the notice, agree to re-work the purse image and then re-issue the products. Think of the “vintage” value the older, LV-style products would have had!

    Unfortunately, and without having all the facts, it looks like everyone is being a bit pig-headed here. Keep in mind though that while the amounts being demanded sound exorbitant, if LV won in court it probably would not get all of what it’s claiming.

    Lastly, I really like the idea of a charity purse. I think the profits from something like a one-off “Darfur bag” would be (a) a great tax write off for the designer; (b) *huge* publicity; and (c) a tremendous fund raiser. What celeb wouldn’t want to be seen with a beautiful, expensive purse which had its maker’s profits donated to charity? It’s goodness by association.

  • Grace Kutney

    I believe LV has the right to protect their intellectual property. However, if they win the suit, they should donate the money to the Darfur cause.

  • hola

    All these people talking about Louis Vuitton’s “right” to control their image and blah blah blah – when do you step in and devide it’s more important to defend a child’s right to basic food and water every day?

    This lawsuit has made me ashamed to carry an LV, and I really hope stealing money from STARVING children in Africa makes them pleased with themselves. I won’t be buying anything from them anytime soon, that’s for damn sure.

  • Grrr

    I cannot recall Louis Vuitton ever doing anything charitable? Rather than holding a law suit against them, they could have taken this oppotunity to help for a good cause. A very rich, successful company wants $7,500 for this & that & $15,000?!.. what for? This could have been $7,500, $15,000 towards helping those suffering in poverty. This makes me so mad :mad:

  • Michelle

    What LV should have done, is, in a low key way, give the designer a proper IPR licence, but with restrictive scope. LV should take the opportunity to say, it’s a company that cares about less fortunate people and donate money to the cause too – free and positive publicity.

    What does the world have coming to? I feel ashamed.

  • Grrr

    I do hope these kinda of comments are getting through to this company. They should really be ashamed of themselves. How embarassing on their behalf, pulling such a diva!

  • AJ

    This is crazy….she is not using the LV image to profit, imitate or rip people off with crazy fakes. She is using the image AND the child and dog to make a strong statement and bring attention to an issue that IS greatly over looked. If LV really wanted to do something they might want to start with all the FAKES that are sold in the fake markets through-out Asia….it is insane the amount of knock-off bags (seen it with my own eyes) being sold! LV why don’t you start to focus on the real issue, not a tee shirt!

  • sam

    I’m surprised at some of the comments made blasting the artist and defending LV. The world is full of ALL kinds of people.

    1) LV logo is not present on the representation of the bag. It’s simply a Murakami lookalike but in no way is it a true replica.

    2) The artist is NOT profiting from this campaign, 100% of profits from t-shirt sales are being donated to Darfur cause. Artist is not blasting owners of LV or chihuahuas, she is simply pointing out how media attention is given to frivolous celebrities and not to worthy causes.

    3) LV handled the situation in the worst possible way. They should be helping out the Darfur campaign, not hindering it. But the good thing that came out of this lawsuit is the publicity and media attention this will shed to the charity.

    4) LV just sank lower in my book.

  • nuj

    i don’t LV is necessarily suing because of copyright infringement or whatever. the logo is clearly mocking designer labels and portrays LV in a particularly negative light.. that’s probably why they’re pissed off. i don’t think it has anything to do with the “profits” especially since they’re going to charity, and i’m sure they’re well aware of that

    this whole thing doesn’t really affect my opinion of them. i can understand why they want her to stop using the likeness of their bags in her logo

  • emma

    i wonder if campbell’s soup ever sued andy warhol.

    • EmmBee

      They probably would have if he’d painted the soup cans with a naked, starving child.

  • mave

    do u think paris hilton has a case against the artist then?

    if anything, i think this mocks her more than LV


    • bethy

      i was thinking the same thing….

  • Grrr

    Lol. I was totally thinking the same thing.

  • angeldove

    Louis Vuitton rocks! Sue them!

  • aznkat25

    Exactly why I don’t purchase plastic logo thrown up over handbags from egotistical maniacs who have a pretentious stick up their butts. As if a tshirt image is really going to reduce their yearly sales numbers. If anything suing the artist that is trying to fundraise for a humane cause will hurt their image more. If they want to publicly humiliate themselves and tarnish their image as being heartless cold cash mongers (which we already knew), let them. Rock on Nadia Plenser!

  • Niamh

    I am not a fan of Louis Vuitton as I find their designs quite tacky but I absolutely will not be buying any of their products after reading about this. It is absolutely disgraceful that LV are suing a woman who is trying to help others. This is for CHARITY for God’s sake. I think her campaign is fantastic – such a clever idea – and I find it absolutely disgusting that “celebrities” like Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and their ilk are constantly making front-page news, while children are dying all over the world and no-one seems to give a crap. LV should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves; this makes me sick.

  • sputnik

    haha this is brilliant!
    on the one hand, the artist is blatantly ripping off LV. on the other, because it’s for charity, LV look like total assholes for suing the website selling the images! i love it.
    and the image is also a total slap in the face to the image of the spoilt brat bitch kim kardashian/paris hilton type that is seen out and about with her mini bitchy dog and a big tacky lv bag.
    it’s brilliant on so many levels…

  • InfiniteP

    Louis Vuitton has one of two choices here- they let it slide or they don’t. If they let it slide, they would be setting a precedent. Others would wonder why, if they used a mock-LV display for artistic purposes, why they themselves couldn’t get away with it, if so-and-so did the first time. What if the next artist’s cause isn’t quite so worthy? What if the next artist sued LV on the basis that they have allowed others to use their logo in the past for a certain cause, and the artist ascertains that LV is being biased against them or their cause in some way? A lot goes into this. I’m not on LV’s side per say, but I understand their predicament. I think they are handling it a bit harshly, and a good natured public statement might help to clear things up, or a charitable move on their part, but I guess we shall see. The artist is making a good point, and I don’t believe it at all reflects on LV or Chi owners (that’s actually pretty absurd) but this is an artist-to-artist dispute, and I’m not sure why they can’t see eye to eye on the issue.

  • Kelly_Birkin

    LV should be ashamed of themselves. I’ll keep on saving for Hermes.