Questa storia è incredibile: http://www.nadiaplesner.com/Website/darfurnica.php Louis Vuitton vs. Darfur Charity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton ) On February 13, 2007 Louis Vuitton sent a *Cease and Desist* order to artist Nadia Plesner for the "reproduction" of a bag that infringes Louis Vuitton's Intellectual Property Rights.[18]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-Cease-17>The reproduction referred to is a satirical illustration that depicts a malnutritioned child holding a designer dog and a designer bag. The illustration is featured on T-shirts and posters, with all profits going to the charity "Divest for Darfur". The artist defended her "Simple Living" campaign and her right to artistic freedom in a written response to Louis Vuitton on February 27, 2008, calling attention to the lack of the famous monogram, further asserting that the illustration refers to 'designer bags' in general, with no specific mention of the Louis Vuitton brand in either the illustration or any associated campaign material.[19]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-Answer-18>On April 15, 2008, Louis Vuitton notified Plesner of the lawsuit being brought against her. It has been reported that Louis Vuitton is demanding $7,500 (5,000 Euro) for each day Plesner continues to sell the Simple Living products, $7,500 for each day the original *Cease and Desist* letter is published on her website and $7,500 a day for using the name "Louis Vuitton" on her website. In addition, it is alleged that Louis Vuitton is demanding that the artist pays Louis Vuitton's legal costs, including $15,000 to cover additional expenses the company has incurred in protecting their intellectual property rights.[20]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-Fundraiser-19>The contested image was removed from Plesner's website for an extended period. Although an alternative image is now used for Plesner's fundraising campaign, the original image has since reappeared and is featured prominently on the site. *New York Magazine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Magazine>*reported, based on information provided by an LVMH spokeswoman, that Louis Vuitton attempted to stop the case from going to court, but that they were forced to take legal action when Plesner did not respond to their original request to remove the contested image, nor to the subsequent *Cease and Desist* order. According to the article, the LVMH spokeswoman also claimed that Plesner was attempting to conceal the lengths that LVMH went to in order to "prevent the lawsuit."[21]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-nyma_article-20>These claims did not align with Plesner's published response to the *Cease and Desist* order,[19]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-Answer-18>and the article has since been criticized for not allowing Plesner to respond to the claims made by LVMH, particularly as the magazine had been in contact with her only days earlier.[22]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-NYMag-21> In October 2008, Louis Vuitton declared that the company had dropped its lawsuit[23] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-22> but have since reopened it along with a new €205,000 claim due to a painting by the same artist.[24]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Vuitton#cite_note-23> -- Marco Pancini Senior Policy Counsel - Google Chaussee d'Etterbeek 180 - 1000 Brussels - Belgium Desk: +32.(0) 28948492 - Mobile: +32.(0) 473531203 This email may be confidential or privileged. If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else, please erase all copies and attachments, and please let me know that it went to the wrong person. Thanks.