UPDATE: Following months of discussion, Business of Fashion reports that a judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Louis Vuitton, filed by the maker of “Pooey Puitton” toy purses. On May 14, Los Angeles Judge John Walter asserted that MGA Entertainment’s case didn’t demonstrate any “actual controversy” between the two.

Originally filed in 2018, the lawsuit by MGA Entertainment accused LVMH of attempting to disrupt sales of the “Pooey Puitton” toy purses for children, and claimed that the customer would immediately identify and distinguish the toy from Louis Vuitton’s famous handbags. The company also asserted that LVMH has a “history of not respecting parody rights in the US and filing vexatious lawsuits against such protected parody,” and following the filing, LVMH moved to dismiss the case.

Judge John Walter approved Louis Vuitton’s dismissal of the case, stating: “The court need look only to the fact that Louis Vuitton has not sued MGA based on its trademark rights in the US.”

ORIGINAL STORY: Kicking off the new year, Louis Vuitton and its parent company LVMH have been tangled up in a new lawsuit. Having been very protective over it’s signature logos and graphics, the label is now being sued by Los Angeles’ MGA Entertainment company, which believes the house is too overprotective.

The subject of the controversy is MGA’s $59.99 USD “Pooey Puitton” purse, which is a poo-shaped plastic case filled with a selection of toys and slime. Designed to resemble Louis Vuitton’s iconic Takashi Murakami handbag, the purse is white and covered in rainbow-colored symbols. “No reasonable consumer would mistake the Pooey product for a Louis Vuitton handbag,” states MGA in the lawsuit. LV prevoiusly complained that “the use of the Pooey name and Pooey product in association with a product line of ‘magical unicorn poop’ is intended to criticize or comment upon the rich and famous, the Louis Vuitton name, the LV marks, and on their conspicuous consumption.”

MGA Entertainment is suing the brand due to the fashion house’s “history of not respecting parody rights in the US and filing vexatious lawsuits against such protected parody.” It remains to see what the outcome of the controversy will be, but make sure to stay tuned as any more information surfaces.