Amicus Brief

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog LLC

Published: February 22, 2007


U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Our Position

The U.S. district court erred by 1) permitting a parody defense to a claim under the U.S. Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA) despite the fact that the defendant used the mark as a designation of source for its own goods and 2) failing to apply the six likelihood of dilution factors stated in the TDRA.


The court accepted INTA’s positions that (1) the TDRA’s parody defense does not apply because the defendant was using the trademark for its own products and (2) the district court had inadequately considered the six TDRA factors for assessing likelihood of dilution by blurring. However, instead of remanding the case so that the district court could further analyze the factors, the Fourth Circuit analyzed the factors itself and determined that there was no dilution by blurring.