Louis Vuitton Sues Warner Brothers For 'The Hangover 2'

Lawsuit time!

The latest brand in a huff is Louis Vuitton, over some unauthorized product placement in a little movie called "The Hangover 2."

According to the Guardian, the designer label is upset over the airport scene in which Zach Galifianakis's character totes several giant leather trunks and bags. When Ed Helms moves one of them without asking, Galifianakis says, "Careful! That is a Louis Vuitton" (hilariously pronouncing the "s" aloud).

But as it turns out, it wasn't a Louis Vuitton. The bags used by Warner Brothers for the film were fakes, created by the company Diophy which manufacturers all sorts of faux luxury bags.

Louis Vuitton is in the middle of a suit against Diophy to put a stop to the counterfeit bags (see them here on eBay). But in the meantime, they've also slapped Warner Brothers with a lawsuit for "trademark dilution, false designation of origin and unfair competition" in "The Hangover 2."

The leather maker also wants a cut of the film's profits, which total $581 million from worldwide box office sales.

The whole thing may seem silly, considering the movie came out months ago and has since dropped from the pop culture radar. And wouldn't Louis Vuitton appreciate the free product placement, since the average viewer couldn't tell the bags were fake anyway?

Apparently not, considering how the counterfeiting industry is such a thorn in Louis Vuitton's side. Just this week, a U.S. government-organized sting seized $76.8 million worth of counterfeit items from American ports and shops, 93 percent of which were bags, shoes and clothes.

And we'd bet a lot of money that there were some fake Louis bags in that haul.

Read more at Guardian.co.uk and watch the "Hangover 2" scene in question below.

WATCH:

Comments

[iluvmaps]

10:16 AM on 12/27/2011

Geez how greedy can you get

[theroundearth]

08:30 PM on 12/25/2011

By the way, did Prada create any problem for being associate with the devil?

[theroundearth]

08:22 PM on 12/25/2011

You know that Vuitton is not an independent company, don't you. It belongs to a BIG conglomerate.

[Camille Gray]

11:08 PM on 12/24/2011

Oh my. This is why I will never buy a LV bag. So first they're angry because they used fakes in the movie YET they want a cut of the profits.

Oh, okay. -__-

[anthony grey]

04:16 PM on 12/24/2011

they've done this before... they've sued artists for simply using their pattern in homage. i think that's what is called fair use, but louis vuitton doesn't see it that way.

[rybalaw]

01:38 PM on 12/24/2011

This proves that the rich and powerful are into lawsuit abuse just as much as the poor Plaintiffs. How about tort reform for the rich and Spoiled luxury goods maker

[Jeanette Gabaldon]

10:15 AM on 12/25/2011

Completely agree!

[usamade]

10:11 AM on 12/24/2011

Was Sandra's Louis Luggage "real" in The Proposal"??????

[YLS2007]

07:13 AM on 12/24/2011

Sounds like LouiS Vuitton is a spoiled, delusional child in need of free publicity. No money however.

[War peace]

01:20 AM on 12/24/2011

It's a movie!!! You don't see me trying to sue the superman franchise because I'm the real superman (atleast to my 4 year old).

[Aaron Watkins]

09:47 PM on 12/23/2011

Overprice handbags, luggage, and shoes = porn for women.

[SenJo78]

10:27 AM on 12/24/2011

LOL It doesn't even have to be overpriced or designer! I suppose my drooling over Old Navy rather than Marc Jacobs (although I do that on occasion too) is about on par with boys drooling over a VS catalog as opposed to a full blown nudie mag? ;) LOL I can accept that.

[LaRue Kim Wisener]

05:35 PM on 12/24/2011

Guys only drool over VS when they're married or too young to buy porn. In addition, my porn collection is worth far less than any the shoe and handbag collection of any girl I've talked to.

[rybalaw]

01:37 PM on 12/24/2011

I thought romance novels were porn for females

[boscobear]

04:26 PM on 12/23/2011

LV must be desperate for publicity to sue this film. He should not be bringing attention to himself, just let it go to video.

[Highball]

04:23 PM on 12/23/2011

I can see why LV is not happy about it.

What I can't see is why, in a film with a production budget of $80M, they felt they needed to settle for counterfeit bags. I mean, come on.

[ayisha]

08:07 AM on 12/24/2011

uhm... buy expensive bags to use as a prop in one scene? they also use counterfeit money in movies, you know. if anything, i see that as a joke in and of itself. you know... like all the folks running around sporting LV knockoffs.

[Highball]

08:19 AM on 12/24/2011

They use counterfeit money legally, because of insurance reasons. From the sounds of it, they didn't have permission to use counterfeit LV bags. It's illegal to knowingly purchase counterfeit materials.

They've opened themselves up to a serious lawsuit, and for what? To save a couple thousand dollars? If LV's claims are true, they may lose much, much more than that in the end.

It's a bad business decision.

[scooterskeeter]

04:15 PM on 12/23/2011

The brand is already diluted by sleazy rap stars and porn kings. WHo would want one of those?
Hookers?

[ArChiMi]

03:56 AM on 12/24/2011

I wouldn't be caught dead with one if it was given to me as a gift. Visible and recognizable logos on clothing and accessories are extremely vulgar. And every time I see someone carry one of those things, I think that they are fake, both the person and the accessory.

[scooterskeeter]

09:20 AM on 12/24/2011

They get a lot of adverting about this anyway.

[rybalaw]

01:46 PM on 12/24/2011

The same reason I would not own a rolex fake or otherwise. Its just an ad that says rob me criminal.