I guess we'll find out. 

A manufacturer of bags, Frost River, recently sued the maker of the new movie, “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” (Indiana Jones 5), Lucasfilm and its promotional partner, bag maker C.C. Filson (Filson). 

Allegedly, Lucasfilm included a bag (the Geologist Pack) made by Frost River in the movie, but took off the brand’s signature "oval stamped leather and red taffeta." In several scenes, Indiana Jones can arguably be seen wearing the Geologist Pack.

Making matters even worse, Lucasfilm permitted a promotional partner, bag maker Filson to create a 60-second television commercial advertising its own similar but different bags. In the commercial, both Filson's own bags and clips of the movie with the Frost River bag allegedly can be seen.

Frost River is suing under the federal Lanham Act, alleging "reverse passing off," or where competitor A sells or promotes competitor B’s product under competitor A’s name. In short, Frost River argues that Lucasfilm and Filson are attempting to misappropriate or profit from Frost River's talents and workmanship.

This will be an interesting case to watch in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Jack Daniels v. "Bad Spaniels" case. In that case, a dog toy manufacturer made a chew toy that was similar—but not identical—to the iconic Jack Daniels bottle. The courts didn't use the traditional "likelihood of confusion standard," but rather the standard set forth in Rogers v. Grimaldi. The Rogers test applies to works of "artistic expression" like a movie, but in the dog toy case, the Court held that the dog toy didn't apply to the parody "toy," because the use of the dog toy served the same function as the Jack Daniels bottle: to identify who made it.

The plaintiff also has the hurdle of Louis Vuitton’s loss to a film and entertainment studio back in 2012, where Louis Vuitton sued over the use of its bags in the movie "The Hangover Part II." As the bag used in the film was not the genuine product but rather a cheap knock-off bag from a Chinese company called Diophy, Louis Vuitton argued that consumers were confused by this misleading use and that such use constituted trademark infringement. In that case, a district court held that the use of the bags was not an infringement because the moviemaker was using the bags to express information about the movie character, Alan, rather than showing the movie as the source of the bags. In addition, the judge in the case noted that “it is highly unlikely that an appreciable number of people watching the film would even notice that Alan's bag is a knock-off” since the trademark appears in the background of the scene and occupies only a fraction of the frame while on screen. Additionally, the judge found Louis Vuitton’s allegations that consumers might be confused as to whether the company produced or endorsed the film in light of this one scene to be as implausible as Alan's belief during the first film that the Caesar’s Palace hotel in Las Vegas was “the real Caesar’s Palace.”