Two Shanghail real estate developers were ordered on Wednesday to pay 50,000 yuan (US$6,250) compensation to Louis Vuitton Malletier Co Ltd for using an LV handbag as a model's prop in an advertisement to promote their real estate project.

The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court believes Shanghai Xingui Real Estate Development Co Ltd and Shanghai Ladoll International Real Estate Development Co Ltd conducted unfair competition against Louis Vuitton Malletier, which owns the famous Louis Vuitton brand.

But the court didn't agree with Louis Vuitton that the defendants had violated the LV trademark.

Wei Ye, the lawyer for the defendants, said he wasn't satisfied with the verdict and would decide whether to appeal after discussing with the companies.

From July 23 to October 31 last year, a huge signboard - erected on the intersection of Shaanxi Road S. and Yan'an Road M. - showed a woman bending over in a kneeling position while holding an LV handbag in her left hand. Behind her was the design of the real estate project and some literal explanation.

The plaintiff said the ad, using the LV handbag without permission, would mislead consumers since it used common elements - a fashionable woman with a beautiful figure and an LV handbag - that are often adopted in ads for real LV products.

"Consumers are very likely to think it is an LV ad or the LVMH group is also involved in real estate," said Huang Tao, the plaintiff's lawyer.

The company was seeking 180,000 yuan in compensation, including legal fees.

The defendants argued that the LV handbag was just used as a prop. Units for the Ladoll project were already selling when the ad was put up so it didn't need to rely on LV's fame.

Besides, the LV pattern on the handbag was much smaller than the characters used for the project name and the developers' names, which wouldn't confuse consumers.

The court said the ad's implication that noble people carrying LV handbags can become owners of top grade property was aimed at boosting the property's prestige by making use of the Louis Vuitton name.

"The defendants purposely made use of the trademark of the plaintiff to get profits, which should be unfair competition," said the verdict. 

Editor: Yan