Case: 12-2885

Document: 12-3

Page: 1

08/01/2012

679974

ADDENDUM B TO FORM C
ISSUES To BE RAISED ON APPEAL

1. Whether the District Court erred by not accepting the allegations in the complaint as true on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and by making factual determinations including, without limitation, determinations relating to the fact-intensive Rogers and Polaroid balancing tests. Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). 2. Whether the District Court erred in holding that Wanrer Bros.' use nad misrepresentation of the Diophy Bag as a genuine Louis Vuitton in its film The Hangover: Part II was protected by the First Amendment notwithstanding the fact-based balancing test of Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). 3. Whether the District Court erred in finding that Warner Bros.' use of the Diophy Bag in its film The Hangover.. Part II caused no likelihood of confusion. Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). 4. Whether the District Court erred in its application of the Polaroid factors, including, without limitation, its findings that the strength of the mark factor "do[es] not really apply" and that the similarity of marks factor "strongly come[s] out in favor of Warner Bros." Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 11-CV-9436, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83646, *33-34, n. 19 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2012). Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). 5. Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Louis Vuitton's state law claims for the same reasons that it dismissed its Lanham Act claim. Dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). 6. Whether the District Court erred in its legal interpretations of the Lanham Act and the New York General Business Law. The District Court's rulings on questions of law, including questions of statutory interpretation, are reviewed de novo. Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, 511 F.3d 324, 327 (2d Cir. 2007).

7996602 DOC (2) doc _