Judge P. Kevin Castel
In its Lanham Act suit alleging trademark infringement and dilution, Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) was granted judgment for liability after Hyundai used a basketball with patterns suggestive of LVM’s marks in a humorous commercial commenting on the excesses of luxury through absurd juxtapositions of symbols of extravagance paired with everyday situations. The court found no reasonable juror could conclude that Hyundai’s use of LVM’s marks qualified for fair-use protection under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act. The court denied Hyundai’s motion to certify an interlocutory appeal under 28 USC §1292(b). Noting Hyundai did not show entitlement to judgment under the Polaroid factors, the court found interlocutory appeal would not materially advance litigation and that LVM’s infringement claims would remain. Further, the narrowness of Hyundai’s proposed questionpremised on a self-serving, argumentative characterization of the evidence in the summary judgment recordweighed against certification. The court also determined that Hyundai did not coherently articulate the legal issues it claimed warrant appeal. The court found the issues more properly raised in an appeal after entry of final judgment.
