This is a brief excerpt from the document you requested from IFAR’s Art Law & Cultural Property Database.

Case Summary

Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. and Arthur v. Museum of Contemporary Art

Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc., No. 08-cv-04731 (AHM), slip op. (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2009), modified by No. 08-cv-04731 (AHM), slip op. (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2010).

See also: Arthur v. Museum of Contemporary Art, No. BC 393615, Tr. of Proceedings (Cal. Sup. Ct. April 23, 2009).

Précis
At issue in this case was whether defendant Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. (“Louis Vuitton”) committed 

fraud and violated the California Sale of Fine Prints Act (the “FPA”) and other state laws when it sold handbag canvases wrapped on stretchers as “original” works by Takashi Murakami.  This case is important not only because it highlights the importance of compliance with fine print labeling laws, but also because . . . .






Click here to subscribe to IFAR's Art Law & Cultural Property Database to access this and other documents about U.S. and international legislation and case law concerning the acquisition, authenticity, export, ownership, and copyright of art objects.