Can the illegal use of a trademark ever be justified? Who wins in a clash between freedom of expression and trademark rights? The infringement case brought by Louis Vuitton against Danish artist Nadia Plesner may provide the answers.

Danish design student Nadia Plesner recently created a t-shirt design for her Simple Living t-shirt charity, featuring a Darfur victim carrying what looks to be a Louis Vuitton purse and a tiny dog – a parody of celebrity Paris Hilton. According to Ms. Plesner, the design was meant to draw world attention to what people are engrossed in “while thousands are dying of genocide.”

But the luxury handbag maker isn’t buying it and has slapped Ms. Plesner first with a cease-and-desist letter, and then with a lawsuit claiming that the design (also used in a poster) is infringing on Louis Vuitton’s trademark. When Plesner, a member of Designers for Darfur, which raises money for genocide victims in Sudan, proclaimed, “I stand for my artistic freedom to express my view of the world…without restrictions,” the luxury brand group countered with:

“…we cannot help noticing that the design of the Simple Living products includes the

reproduction of a bag infringing on Louis Vuitton’s intellectual property rights, in particular the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolor trademark to which it is confusingly similar…”

This unique case poses the question: Can artistic freedom or freedom of expression ever justify the use of a brand's trademark? And if so, to what extent? Could advocates make their point just as effectively without using such trademarks?

According to the artist, her main message was that the media covers meaningless things like handbags and Paris Hilton's pooch instead of issues that are really important. But why use what is clearly a Louis Vuitton purse? She apparently thinks it's got the cache she was looking for and that the brand – which can be seen in every magazine and in every part of the world – was something that would resonate like no other.

Many people agree and cite Article 10 of the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as a basis for the pre-eminence of artistic freedom and their concern that any limitation of expression is this area must be necessary and proportionate.

But as far as Louis Vuitton is concerned, it's been brand-jacked without any provocation – with its image and reputation drugged through the mud – in a genocide campaign that the brand has nothing to do with. Louis Vuitton immediately sprang into action with a cease-and-desist letter to Ms. Plesner that said in part, "As an artist yourself, we hope that you recognize the need to respect other artists' rights and Louis Vuitton's intellectual property rights, which include the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore trademark." A subsequent lawsuit has demanded $20,000 a day in damages each day the campaign is continued.

Will this legal strategy work? Blogger Jeremiah Owyang, in his blog web-strategist.com, ponders this very question. Should Louis Vuitton continue the lawsuit, with a strong probability that the brand will win a settlement based on copyright infringement of its design? Should it drop the suit and work with Plesner's organization to raise funds – enhancing its profile with the do-gooders but perhaps giving activists a sign that brand-jacking works? Or should it just walk away and wait for the dust to settle in the hope that there will be no lasting negative impact on the brand?

So who is on the right? Was it right for Plesner, even if her intentions were noble, to infringe a famous designer brand to promote her cause? Is it right for Louis Vuitton to claim $20,000 a day to right a wrong that will probably not even hurt its annual sales of billions?

Still, the better question could be, even if the infringement does not hurt Louis Vuitton's sales, would it hurt the reputation of its brand and therefore its sales down the road? As an LV spokesman said recently, "If companies don't take action to protect trademarks, it's harder to do so in the future.

Surely, a successful awareness campaign can be created without trampling on someone else's intellectual property rights.