Case Name: Louis Vuitton v. Louis Vuiton Dak
Citation: Seoul Central District Court, South Korea (2016)
Court: Seoul Central District Court
Introduction
The present landmark brand or trademark infringement case related to the Luxury Clothing brand Louis Vuitton successfully undertook a legal case against a South Korean fried chicken food outlet known as “Louis Vuitton Dak” for trademark infringement. The court decided in favour of Louis Vuitton, concluding that the restaurant’s name, logo, plus packaging had been misleadingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark.
The present case constitutes a notable international trademark conflict that brings attention to the legal security granted to well-known marks throughout varied sectors and jurisdictions. The case shows how the luxury brands can effectively exercise their trademark rights against companies functioning in completely different industries if there is proof of intentional imitation and possible customer confusion.
Facts
- The defendant ran a fried chicken restaurant using the brand name “Louis Vuitton Dak”(removing solely a single letter ’t’ from “Vuitton”)
- “Dak” translates to “chicken” in Korean, forming a pun
- The restaurant used packing material as well as napkins, displaying a pattern similar to Louis Vuitton’s unique toile monogram pattern.
- The restaurant’s branding is strongly replicated from Louis Vuitton’s renowned logo, as well as brand imagery.
- Louis Vuitton filed a civil suit seeking the discontinuance of the unauthorised exploitation along with monetary damages.
Issues
- Whether the use of “Louis Vuitton Dak” amounts to trademark infringement of Louis Vuitton’s registered trademark?
- Whether there is a probability of confusion between restaurants’ branding and Louis Vuitton’s registered mark?
- Whether the defendant’s activities amounted to malicious exploitation of a famous Trademark?
- The degree of legal safeguard granted to the famous trademarks throughout various sectors.
- Whether the application of a look-alike monogram pattern on food packaging amounts to trademark infringement?
Reasoning
Similarity of trademarks- The court held that “Louis Vuiton Dak” bore a likelihood of confusion with “Louis Vuitton” differing by merely one single letter, which is not enough to avert customer confusion. The pronunciation likeness was especially evident.
Protection of famous marks- The court recognised “Louis Vuitton” as a famous mark entitled to legal safeguards outside its core product categories. This legal doctrine enables a famous mark to prevent dilution in dissimilar sectors
Bad Faith- The court found that the defendant’s actions indicated bad faith, as shown by:
- Intentional minor modification of the well-known trademark
- Use of a look-alike brand imagery
- No bona fide reason for selecting such a similar name
Likelihood of Confusion- Despite functioning in a different sector ( luxury goods vs. food service), the court found a likelihood of customer confusion concerning the brand ownership of the restaurant
Monogram Infringement- The application of similar designs, which are unique to “Louis Vuitton”, on the packaging was adjudged to be a further breach of trademark.
Critique of the Famous Trademark Dispute
Strengths of the Decision:
- Duly acknowledges the international protection granted to the famous brand
- Confronts the increasing issue of violation of trademarks across different sectors
- Takes into account the entirety of relevant factors instead of concentrating solely on sectoral differences
- Rightfully evaluates the component of bad faith in the matter of trademark cases
Areas for Analysis:
- The judgment carefully reconciles the safeguarding of the registered mark alongside fair-trade principles
- Illustrates proper implementation of global trademark norms by a local judicial body
- Demonstrates the court’s understanding of modern commercial strategies that surpass classical commercial limits
Wider Implications:
The verdict upholds that the famous trademark enjoys wider protection and that judicial bodies will look beyond sectoral categories when adjudicating brand misuse cases related to famous marks
Impact of the Famous Trademark Dispute
Legal Precedent: This judgment adds to the legal framework, upholding strong safeguards for famous brands and illustrating how international IP norms can be applied in local courts.
Industry impact:
- Emphasises the significance of undertaking rigorous prior trademark due diligence before finalising the commercial brand name
- Draws attention to the legal consequences of intentionally adopting similar names to famous brands, irrespective of sectoral differences
- Illustrates that the court will evaluate the complete scope of the brand beyond mere trade name
International Trademark Law: The case illustrates how protection of a famous mark extends across nations and market sectors, affirming doctrines laid down in international brand protection conventions (e.g., TRIPS, Paris Convention)
Practical Consequences:
- The defendant was directed to pay 14.5 million won ($12,500) as punitive damages
- Mandated termination of any unauthorised exploitations
- Per diem fines for ongoing non-compliance
Conclusion of the Famous Trademark Protection Dispute
The case of Louis Vuitton vs. Louis Vuiton Dak signifies a clear implementation of a famous trademark protection doctrine in an international setting. The ruling by the Seoul trial court appropriately balanced the conflicting interests of brand safeguarding and lawful commercial operations. The case acts as a significant precedent for luxury brands and similar owners of famous marks, aiming to safeguard their IP interests throughout various jurisdictions and commercial domains.
The judgment affirms the fact that trademark infringement examination must take into account the entirety of the factors, such as the fame of the trademark, the resemblance of the disputed elements, the bad faith of the infringing party and the possibility of customer confusion, irrespective of sectoral variation. This case is expected to impact future IP disputes concerning famous marks and multi-industry trademark allegations.
The hefty monetary sanctions ordered indicate judicial readiness to implement intellectual property rights forcefully in cases where clear proof of deliberate imitation is present, acting as a powerful preventive measure for later transgressors.
FAMOUS TRADEMARK PROTECTION WIN
July 2, 2025
Mohammad Asmar
Integral University, Lucknow
Case Name: Louis Vuitton v. Louis Vuiton Dak
Citation: Seoul Central District Court, South Korea (2016)
Court: Seoul Central District Court
Introduction
The present landmark brand or trademark infringement case related to the Luxury Clothing brand Louis Vuitton successfully undertook a legal case against a South Korean fried chicken food outlet known as “Louis Vuitton Dak” for trademark infringement. The court decided in favour of Louis Vuitton, concluding that the restaurant’s name, logo, plus packaging had been misleadingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark.
The present case constitutes a notable international trademark conflict that brings attention to the legal security granted to well-known marks throughout varied sectors and jurisdictions. The case shows how the luxury brands can effectively exercise their trademark rights against companies functioning in completely different industries if there is proof of intentional imitation and possible customer confusion.
Facts
Issues
Reasoning
Similarity of trademarks- The court held that “Louis Vuiton Dak” bore a likelihood of confusion with “Louis Vuitton” differing by merely one single letter, which is not enough to avert customer confusion. The pronunciation likeness was especially evident.
Protection of famous marks- The court recognised “Louis Vuitton” as a famous mark entitled to legal safeguards outside its core product categories. This legal doctrine enables a famous mark to prevent dilution in dissimilar sectors
Bad Faith- The court found that the defendant’s actions indicated bad faith, as shown by:
Likelihood of Confusion- Despite functioning in a different sector ( luxury goods vs. food service), the court found a likelihood of customer confusion concerning the brand ownership of the restaurant
Monogram Infringement- The application of similar designs, which are unique to “Louis Vuitton”, on the packaging was adjudged to be a further breach of trademark.
Critique of the Famous Trademark Dispute
Strengths of the Decision:
Areas for Analysis:
Wider Implications:
The verdict upholds that the famous trademark enjoys wider protection and that judicial bodies will look beyond sectoral categories when adjudicating brand misuse cases related to famous marks
Impact of the Famous Trademark Dispute
Legal Precedent: This judgment adds to the legal framework, upholding strong safeguards for famous brands and illustrating how international IP norms can be applied in local courts.
Industry impact:
International Trademark Law: The case illustrates how protection of a famous mark extends across nations and market sectors, affirming doctrines laid down in international brand protection conventions (e.g., TRIPS, Paris Convention)
Practical Consequences:
Conclusion of the Famous Trademark Protection Dispute
The case of Louis Vuitton vs. Louis Vuiton Dak signifies a clear implementation of a famous trademark protection doctrine in an international setting. The ruling by the Seoul trial court appropriately balanced the conflicting interests of brand safeguarding and lawful commercial operations. The case acts as a significant precedent for luxury brands and similar owners of famous marks, aiming to safeguard their IP interests throughout various jurisdictions and commercial domains.
The judgment affirms the fact that trademark infringement examination must take into account the entirety of the factors, such as the fame of the trademark, the resemblance of the disputed elements, the bad faith of the infringing party and the possibility of customer confusion, irrespective of sectoral variation. This case is expected to impact future IP disputes concerning famous marks and multi-industry trademark allegations.
The hefty monetary sanctions ordered indicate judicial readiness to implement intellectual property rights forcefully in cases where clear proof of deliberate imitation is present, acting as a powerful preventive measure for later transgressors.
Other Recent Blog Posts
TRADEMARK REVOCATION: LANDMARK RULING
Trademark revocation battle between Supermac’s and McDonald’s reshapes EU IP law, setting a precedent for small business rights.
MASTERING BRAZIL TRADEMARK APPLICATION
Learn how to file a trademark application in Brazil, understand legal steps, required documents, and international protection.
TRADE DRESS: VISUAL IP POWER
Explore how trade dress protects a product’s shape, colour, and packaging, preserving brand identity in competitive markets.
TRADEMARK TRAPS IN CHINA EXPOSED
From squatting to subclass snags, this guide helps you dodge trademark traps in China is infamous for. File smart, protect fast.
WHEN COLOURS BECOME TRADEMARKS
Learn how “when colours become trademarks” shifts branding and IP law, with global cases, legal tests, and protection challenges.
JAPAN TRADEMARK FILING GUIDE
This guide to Japan trademark filing explains the step-by-step process, legal bodies, costs, and post-registration requirements.