# Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Pun Yang Lee

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · May 16, 1989 · 875 F.2d 584

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8969836

## Case

- **Full name:** LOUIS VUITTON S.A., and Gucci Shops, Inc. v. Pun Yang LEE, also known as Jane Lee, and In Ka Lee, also known as John Lee, doing business under the name K-Econo Merchandise
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** May 16, 1989
- **Citations:** 875 F.2d 584
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ripple
- **Judges:** Easterbrook, Posner, Ripple
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8969836

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding willful blindness when defendant bought obviously poorly crafted goods from an intinerant peddler at bargain-basement prices
- finding willful blindness when defendant failed to inquire further out of fear of the result of his inquiry
- describing § 1117(b) as a “severe statute” subject only to extremely narrow exception for “extenuating circumstances”

## Opinion text

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The proper functioning of our judicial system requires that we recognize consistently the appropriate relationship between our court and the district courts whose judgments we are required to review. If I had been the district judge, I might have reached, on this record, the conclusion reached by my brothers today. However, as an appellate judge, I cannot say that the district court committed reversible error when it determined that, despite the stipulation and the pretrial order, the wilfullness of the violation was tried by consent of the parties after the defendants had obtained new counsel. Luria Bros. & Co. v. Alliance Assur. Co., 780 F.2d 1082 , 1089 (2d Cir.1986); Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 368 (9th Cir.1985). Nor am I willing to substitute my own judgment for that of the trial judge on crucial matters of credibility — especially where those credibility determinations are so explicitly detailed. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 , 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1512 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the district court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8969836. Public record. Not legal advice.