Louis Vuitton v. Dooney & Bourke 454 F.3d 108. (https://casetext.com/case/louis-vuitton-malletier-v-dooney-bourke)
Please do brief case doing IRAC and answer questions.
1) Identify the court that decided the case and describe the basis of the court’s jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute (review Chapter 2for guidance); 2) Conduct a simple name search on the New York Secretary of State website and identify the types of business organizations under which Louis Vuitton has organized, print out your search and attach it your assignment, and then state in your response the business forms under which both Louis Vuitton and Dooney & Bourke have organized and state the pros and cons of these business forms; 3) What other alternative business formscould Louis Vuitton and Dooney & Bourkeselect,and explain the pros and cons of at least oneof these alternative business forms; 4) Describe the type of relief Louis Vuittonsought in the caseand state whether this is a legal or equitable remedy (review Chapter 1 for guidance);5) Research the outcome of the Louis Vuittoncase by printing the following case citation(561 F.Supp.2d 368 [S.D.N.Y. 2008]), and state the lower court’s decision on remand. Did Louis Vuitton receive the injunction against Dooney & Bourke it originally sought? Why or why not? (SLOs 1, 2, 3, and 4). Your responses to the above questions should be numbered and written in paragraph format.
Here are Issue and Rule:Issue: Whether Louis Vuitton’s unregistered Multicolore mark is entitled to trademark protection and, if so, whether Dooney & Bourke’s It-Bag infringed on Vuitton’s mark by causing consumer confusion?
Rule: Lanham Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. section 1051, et seq. (citing Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961),