October 2020
« Sep    

Search Posts


About Us

We love fashion, culture, music, and everything in between. From politics to the runway, we're unbashful in our views, constructive in our thoughts, and glamorous in our style. Welcome!

  • Email us:
  • Follow us on Twitter:
  • Senior Managing Editor
    Virginia “Ginny” Van de Wall
  • Junior Managing Editors
    Megan Dawson
  • Jessica Passananti
  • Fashion Editor
    Mashal Zaman
  • Culture Editor
    Lindsay Jill Barton
  • Music Editor
    Lakin Starling
December 27, 2011  | by: Katherine Bautista

The Hangover-Part 2

So if you haven’t yet heard, The Hangover Part II is at the center of yet another lawsuit. First the Hangover 2 was sued by a tattoo artist over a fake Mike Tyson tattoo, now the film finds itself in legal trouble over some luggage.

Louis Vuitton is suing Warner Bros. for bringing some excess baggage in one of the scenes — the scene where they are on their way to Las Vegas when Alan, scolds Stu (Ed Helms) for throwing a piece of his luggage.

“Careful, that’s a Louis — that is a Louis Vuitton,” Alan says, which is probably how it was caught to the attention.

In a complaint filed on Thursday, the fashion company says the bag in question (seen slung over Zach Galifianakis’ shoulder in the photo) is actually a knockoff – and that the studio never got permission to call it a “Louis Vuitton” in the first place. Now we all know how big and famous this brand is, so some people may have different thoughts about it. As far as bringing more publicity for the company, however, they felt just the opposite. The company claims the public will confuse the fake bag for the real thing, thus harming the brand.

The Hangover - Part 2

Now the real handbag maker is upset about the confusion and demanding that Warner Bros. modify the offending scene before continuing to distribute the movie according to the suit (posted by Paid Content). The company wants the studio to destroy any materials that include the scene, and is asking for a share of the profits and damages. The company claims trademark dilution, false designation of origin and unfair competition.

To add insult to injury, Warner Bros. won’t share any profits from the film with Vuitton, and “has refused to alter the handbag for the DVD release.” But on the other hand, Tyson’s tattoo incident facing similar lines resulted in a different ending. They digitally altered the tattoo for the DVD and gave him settlement money. If Warner Bros. can settle with S. Victor Whitmill (Tyson’s artist), why can’t they settle with Vuitton? Maybe it’s because they are both big companies (yes in different fields) but business is business and this is definitely competition.

Social Share Toolbar
Tags: , , , ,
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.