• Louis Vuitton hits The Hangover Part II with a handbag lawsuit
    48 replies, posted
[release] [IMG]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Archive/Search/2011/12/23/1324639203205/The-Hangover-Part-II-007.jpg[/IMG]Legal baggage... The Hangover Part II is facing a trademark lawsuit from Louis Vuitton. Photograph: Melinda Sue Gordon It may not have been the funniest or most critically acclaimed [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/comedy"]comedy[/URL] of 2011, but [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/movie/141948/hangover-part-ii"]The Hangover Part II[/URL] [URL="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hangover-warner-bros-sued-louis-vuitton-276132"]has certainly attracted the lawsuits[/URL]. The Hangover Part II [B]Production year: 2011[/B] [B][B]Country: USA[/B][/B] [B][B][B]Cert (UK): 15[/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B]Runtime: 102 mins[/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B]Directors: Todd Phillips[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B]Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Jamie Chung, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Mike Tyson, Paul Giamatti, Zach Galifianakis[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B][URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/movie/141948/hangover-part-ii"]More on this film[/URL][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B]The blockbuster sequel to Todd Phillips's 2009 sleeper hit about a group of friends who travel abroad for a highly eventful stag do has already faced litigation from a tattoo artist claiming copyright over a Mike Tyson-inspired example of body art. Now French [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion"]fashion[/URL] house Louis Vuitton has engaged lawyers over a scene in which Zach Galifianakis's eccentric Alan wrongly identifies a handbag as one of its own.[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B]A trademark suit against [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/warner-bros"]Warner Bros[/URL], which was filed yesterday in a New York federal court, suggests the firm has been damaged after Galifianakis's line, "careful, that is a Louis Vuitton", became a catchphrase. According to the complaint, rather than sourcing a real Louis Vuitton, producers apparently utilised a knock-off made by the Diophy group of companies, who Vuitton is also suing to prevent it selling its goods in the US. In short, the company claims trademark dilution, false designation of origin and unfair competition.[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B]Vuitton, which wants a share of profits from the film, says studio Warner Bros has refused to alter the handbag for the DVD release. The latter has so far declined to comment.[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B]Other suits to hit The Hangover Part II include [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/24/hangover-ii-tattoo-copyright-mike-tyson?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487"]one from tattoo artist S Victor Whitmill[/URL], who created the original Maori-inspired tattoo for Mike Tyson that was reproduced in a scene in which Stuart (Ed Helms) wakes up after a night of drunken debauchery to discover he has an identical design on his face. The studio later said it would digitally alter the design for the DVD release and agreed to settle with Whitmill for an undisclosed amount.[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B]In October, producers also faced a plagiarism suit from screenwriter Michael Alan Rubin, who said The Hangover Part II was based on his idea for a comedy in which the main character travels from America to Asia to wed his girlfriend. It was later dismissed. The studio also settled with a stuntman who claimed he suffered brain trauma during a stunt gone wrong.[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B] [B][B][B][B][B][B]While it failed to pick up the positive critical response handed to its predecessor, The Hangover Part II was a sizable box office hit, taking $581m across the globe. A third film is already in the works. [/release] [URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/dec/23/louis-vuitton-hangover-part-2[/URL] Couldn't they just buy the real one[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]
First Mike Tyson, now this?
You don't fuck around with bags. Also the movie sucked.
[QUOTE=TheJoker;33887238]First Mike Tyson, now this?[/QUOTE] what happened with mike tyson?
What a bunch of sissy ass fashion fools. SAFF.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;33887292]what happened with mike tyson?[/QUOTE] It was his tattoo artist actually. [url]http://www.popeater.com/2011/05/24/mike-tyson-tattoo-hangover-2/[/url]
Those lawsuits are incredibly ridiculous.
But what if that's the joke? The characters might be easily mistaking the bag, themselves. It might be the point to show the fleeting pompousness with which they handle the accessory, due to their lack of knowledge.
A third movie now? They're all the same.
[QUOTE=Badballer;33887554]They're all the same.[/QUOTE] You racist!
It's funny because it's free advertising on their part. What are they afraid of? Their merchandise being owned by middle-class people?
That's a very [I]bold[/I] story you got there OP.
It's a movie prop, that would be like gun manufacturers suing every action movie because they're not proper rifles (the shoot blanks.) So stupid.
I read the title and was wondering how a company could hit a movie with a handbag :downs:
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;33887550]But what if that's the joke? The characters might be easily mistaking the bag, themselves. It might be the point to show the fleeting pompousness with which they handle the accessory, due to their lack of knowledge.[/QUOTE] Exactly. A film is supposed to depict things. You cannot sue them for having things which belong to you depicted, or you'd logically have to allow everyone to complain about brand damage. HK doesn't get to bitch if a bad guy shoots an MP5, nor does IKEA get to bitch if somebody says something about "this piece of shit table", so a fucking handbag shouldn't get special treatment.
If The Hangover II wasn't a shot-for-shot remake of the first, then I might be willing to defend it. But I'm not.
But who can tell the fake ones and the real ones apart? I heard you had to go to microscopic detail to see.
Get-Rich-Quick-Scheme. Fuck your gay ass handbags.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;33893229]But who can tell the fake ones and the real ones apart? I heard you had to go to microscopic detail to see.[/QUOTE] If they're anything like other fakes, just put a real one next to it and you'll notice how a label might be in the wrong spot, maybe the pattern is too sparse, little things like that.
I'd imagine that this one fall under a similar category to parody, meaning Louis Vuitton would have no case.
No matter what they have no case. McDonalds couldn't sue the maker of fucking Super Size Me for fucks sake. This is retarded.
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;33893229]But who can tell the fake ones and the real ones apart? I heard you had to go to microscopic detail to see.[/QUOTE] Theres been story where when people walk into a Louis Vuitton outlet while using a fake LV handbag, the guards will walk up to you and cut those rope thingys for handles. I guess there is a company secret to identify original and fake. Also, this is not the first time Louis Vuitton did this, I guess they just don't want free advertising.
[QUOTE=adam1172;33899179]Theres been story where when people walk into a Louis Vuitton outlet while using a fake LV handbag, the guards will walk up to you and cut those rope thingys for handles. [/QUOTE] I doubt thats true. Even if you were wearing a knock-off bag, its still your property and they'd be breaking the law taking it from you or damaging it.
I laughed at maybe one joke in the Hangover part II And I can't even remember what that joke was so it probably wasn't that funny. [editline]26th December 2011[/editline] oh and "that's why it's called bangKOK not bangCUNT" sounds like a joke that a 13 year old would come up with.
[QUOTE=adam1172;33899179]Theres been story where when people walk into a Louis Vuitton outlet while using a fake LV handbag, the guards will walk up to you and cut those rope thingys for handles. [/QUOTE] That's ok, I can spend another $5 for a new one.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;33900802]I laughed at maybe one joke in the Hangover part II And I can't even remember what that joke was so it probably wasn't that funny. [editline]26th December 2011[/editline] oh and "that's why it's called bangKOK not bangCUNT" sounds like a joke that a 13 year old would come up with.[/QUOTE] I was relieved that was the only Bangkok joke in the movie. I was expecting more.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;33900802]I laughed at maybe one joke in the Hangover part II And I can't even remember what that joke was so it probably wasn't that funny. [editline]26th December 2011[/editline] oh and "that's why it's called bangKOK not bangCUNT" sounds like a joke that a 13 year old would come up with.[/QUOTE] It is a movie for 13 year olds anyway.
Not a fan of the movie, or the first one, but this lawsuit is bullshit.
The first one was better, but to be fair the only thing really saving the first one is Mike Tyson and Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), who practically have the only actually hilarious scenes in the movie. Also I can't be the only one who thinks Zack Galifianakis is a really untalented comedian with pretty much one schtick.
no Zack Galifianaski is actually really funny but none of this talents get used in schlock like this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.