As we reported recently, the Second Circuit sided with parody-handbag producer My Other Bag in a trademark-infringement suit launched by high-end fashion brand Louis Vuitton.   The Second Circuit had upheld a district court finding that the use of the Louis Vuitton mark on inexpensive canvas tote bags was transformative parody and protected as fair use.

We’ve written before about conceptual artist Cady Noland, whose works command huge prices in the market, but who has a history of being highly particular about how her creations are installed, maintained, exhibited, and sold on the secondary market.  This tendency has resulted, on at least two recent occasions, in litigation over her disavowal of previous works.  Now, both cases have been resolved, but without significant judicial examination of the contours of an artist’s right to disavow her own creations.

High-end fashion brand Louis Vuitton has lost its trademark suit against a tote-bag company My Other Bag, which markets canvas bags decorated with cartoonish reproductions of bags from high-end fashion lines (such as Chanel and Louis Vuitton), accompanied by the text “My Other Bag….”   This decision is notable, among other reasons, because it reaffirms the contours of the sometimes murky fair-use defense.

In the fast-moving and often-opaque art market, information is power—as seen in a recent lawsuit between rival auction houses over allegedly pilfered sales data. A complaint was filed last week in Texas federal district court by Heritage Auctions, a major U.S.-based auction house. The defendants are auction giant Christie’s and its subsidiary Collectrium (which Christie’s acquired in 2015).

The heirs of a prominent Jewish art dealer have sued the Bavarian state over a group of eight valuable paintings that were allegedly looted when the dealer fled Nazi Germany.  See Docket No. 16-09360 (S.D.N.Y.).  The filing likely marks the start of another complex litigation against a sovereign state over artwork clouded by actions taken during the Nazi era.

Richard Prince has had a busy year on the litigation front. We’ve previously written about the copyright claims photographer Donald Graham filed last winter against Prince and the Gagosian Gallery over Prince’s use of Instagram images in his 2014-15 “New Portraits” exhibition. A motion to dismiss that case on fair use grounds is currently pending.

Over the summer, we reported on a lawsuit against the David Zwirner Gallery filed by a disgruntled collector who had paid $2 million for a Jeff Koons sculpture that the gallery never delivered.  This week, a New York state court rejected Zwirner’s attempt to dismiss the suit; allowing several of the claims against Zwirner to proceed.

A federal court has thrown out a significant portion of Carol Highsmith’s lawsuit against Getty Images.  Highsmith’s complaint alleged that Getty had improperly demanded license fees for images that it did not own, of which Highsmith was the author and copyright holder.

The art world is watching with concern the unfolding story of a fake Frans Hals painting; facts are still developing as of this writing, but it’s possible that the work may not be an isolated forgery but rather the harbinger of a larger group of well-executed fakes that could shake up the Old Master market.

The South Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has passed new legislation imposing strict regulations on art transactions.  The law is intended to increase transparency in the art market by requiring more documentation, and establishing regulatory bodies to oversee the authentication of artworks and investigation of forgeries.  The law may be implemented as early as August 2017.

This blog—like the rest of the art world—has closely followed the legal developments that continue to unfold in the wake of the Knoedler scandal, which exploded in 2011 when one of New York’s oldest art galleries closed following revelations that it had sold dozens of artworks (over the course more than a decade, in deals totaling about $60 million)—purported to be by Rothko, Pollock, Motherwell, and other famed Abstract Expressionists—that later turned out to be forgeries.

Over the summer, we wrote about a group of independent artists mounting a publicity campaign—and threatening legal action—against fast-fashion retailer Zara over the alleged unauthorized incorporation of the artists’ designs into some of Zara’s wares.  This autumn, a new federal lawsuit by artist Lili Chin levies similar accusations against a major department-store chain, Kohl’s, regarding its sale of garments adorned with drawings nearly identical to a series of copyrighted illustrations by Chin.

We have previously covered the litigation arising out of the 2007 sale of a Rothko masterpiece; the work’s seller sued the buyer and an intermediary dealer over alleged violations of a confidentiality provision in the sale contract, after the buyer and dealer resold the piece in a highly publicized 2009 auction.  In late September, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in favor of the defendants, in an opinion that serves as a reminder about the importance of clear contracting in art transactions.

When international fast-food chain McDonald’s launched a campaign featuring images of graffiti art decorating some of its restaurants, the restaurant opened itself up to litigation asserting, among other things, copyright and trademark claims by artists who say their work has been copied without permission.  As graffiti art has become increasingly artistically and commercially valuable in recent years, courts and litigants have had to examine how copyright law applies to this unique art form.

Litigation involving art displaced during World War II—and with it the continued focus on the need for adequate pre-acquisition due diligence—is in the news again with the recent filing of complaint against the Metropolitan Museum of Art regarding Pablo Picasso’s The Actor.  See Estate of Leffman v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 16-cv-7665 (S.D.N.Y.)

An art investor has initiated legal proceedings in New York state court against a Manhattan gallery she says she “trusted and relied upon” to select artworks as investments, claiming that she now has reason to question key details (like authenticity and purchase price) of several transactions with the gallery.  As is all too common, the parties apparently engaged in multiple art deals—here, involving over a hundred works, over the course of several years—with minimal documentation.  And now that their relationship has deteriorated, a court may have the difficult task of adjudicating the dispute without a written contract in place to guide its analysis.

Spanish pop artist Antonio De Felipe, sometimes referred to as the “Spanish Andy Warhol,” is under fire due to accusations by his former studio assistant that he is selling her works as his own.  Fumiko Negishi, an artist who worked as De Felipe’s studio assistant from 2006 to February of this year, has brought a lawsuit against him claiming that she painted 221 canvases signed by De Felipe.

A disgruntled client’s claims against the Elliot Stevens Gallery and its executive are headed to trial this fall in a dispute involving the client’s purchase of a group of sculptures.

Earlier this summer, a heated dispute erupted between a Manhattan gallerist and a private art advisory business, in a case that raises issues regarding the roles of galleries and advisors at the high end of the art market.

Back in August, the New York Times ran a story about a heated dispute between actor Alec Baldwin and gallerist Mary Boone over a painting by Ross Bleckner.  Baldwin has now commenced a lawsuit in New York state court against Boone and her eponymous gallery, claiming that she defrauded him into buying a different version of the painting he wanted.  See Docket No. 654807/2016 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.).