A Big Hand For Brett Lewis - LV.COM

[keyser]

Or perhaps Louis Vuitton Malletier Holdings.

"La Vraiment Méchante Hânerie"
:-O

 

[fab]

Thanks for sharing. Good job Brett.

 

[Keynes]

Whatever.

These guys have billions of dollars, I mean how FU+_"ng greedy can you get?????? Buy the damn domain ----dont steal it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:baring_teeth:

How do you think they built up that corporate net worth? Through honesty and fairness? No, they are in the "luxury" business -- convincing us of the worth of brands to extract producer surplus on marginal quality goods. But then again, women love the stuff...

 

[Brett Lewis]

Not sure the smiley you chose was appropriate for Brett if his pic at DNJ still
reflects such.

I am laughing in that picture. It's just the bald head that's throwing you off. I remember that day . . . I've never laughed so hard. Anyway, I used to be a rocker, so the smiley is perfectly appropriate. :music:

Brett

 

[Theo]

The case was handled by board member Brett Lewis, not me.

But I gather you were congratulating me on figuring out how to use an animated smiley.

Brett has also written some good stuff for DNJournal:

http://www.dnjournal.com/legal/bl-practicaltips.htm

Brett must be jealous of your rich hair, John :-D

 

[Steen]

How do you think they built up that corporate net worth? Through honesty and fairness? No, they are in the "luxury" business -- convincing us of the worth of brands to extract producer surplus on marginal quality goods. But then again, women love the stuff...

I am pretty sure those who pay $3k for a (LV) leather purse would argue that their item is of very high quality. If not, they probably would have simply purchased a fake for $60.

 

[typist]

I am pretty sure those who pay $3k for a (LV) leather purse would argue that their item is of very high quality. If not, they probably would have simply purchased a fake for $60.

Some, but not all. I have been dabbling in the high-end purse and watch markets for a few years now, as a marketer. My somewhat educated guess is that at least 90% buy because they think the brand conveys prestige. Quality isn't necessarily the most important issue. The same goes for watches: retail price for a run-of-the-mill rolex is approximately 10 times manufacturing cost. If you want a high quality watch, you can buy one for (only) three times the manufacturing cost, rather than the rolex factor of 10 (funding the huge marketing machinery). The bulk of high-end brand buyers want prestige, and they want to see tons of costly ads and commercials reassuring them (and hopefully others) that they bought the right stuff.

 

[jberryhill]

Brett must be jealous of your rich hair, John

You know, I always tell people that the "best attorney" is the attorney with whom they feel comfortable. Different lawyers have different styles, and you should go with the one with whom you "click". Brett and I certainly cover both extremes in the hair department.

 

[Dave Zan]

You know, I always tell people that the "best attorney" is the attorney with whom they feel comfortable. Different lawyers have different styles, and you should go with the one with whom you "click".

Yup, just like choosing the "best" registrar you "click" with.

 

[Slipxaway]

I think there need to be more cases like this, but where reverse hijacking is found. Just like a company tries to make an example out of someone for copyright or TM infringement occassionally in order to establish public awareness and fear, so should WIPO. If they are going to preserve the integrity of the process, they need to send a strong message that frivilous suits like this one are NOT welcome and will be punished. Not everyone can afford a good lawyer to defend them and it shouldn't come down to who has the bigger wallet. But, yeh I guess the legal system has always been skewed in favor of the rich. It's definitely good to see that reason usually wins out in the end though.

 

[jberryhill]

I guess the legal system has always been skewed in favor of the rich

That applies across the board, not just in this area. If you do not own anything, then the only relevance to you of property law is to keep your hands off of other peoples' property.

A huge chunk of law is about protecting the rights of those who have from those who do not. That's not really a "bias" so much as a reflection on the fact that if you do not have anything, then you do not have anything to lose.

 

[Duckinla]

I guess the legal system has always been skewed in favor of the rich.

All systems are skewed in favor of the rich. Particularly the Mating system. That's why we want to be rich. Power doesn't hurt either, methinks.