image, arguing artistic freedom, and posted copies of the cease-and-desist order on her website. On 15 April 2008, Louis Vuitton notified Plesner of the lawsuit being brought against her. Louis Vuitton demanded $7,500 (€5,000) for each day Plesner continues to sell the "Simple Living" products, $7,500 for each day the original cease-and-desist letter is published on her website and $7,500 a day for using the name "Louis Vuitton" on her website, plus legal and enforcement costs. An LVMH spokeswoman interviewed by New York Magazine said that Louis Vuitton were forced to take legal action when Plesner did not respond to their original request to remove the contested image, nor to the subsequent cease-and-desist order. In October 2008, Louis Vuitton declared that the company had dropped its lawsuit but have since reopened it along with a new €205,000 claim due to a painting by the same artist. In May 2011, the court in The Hague found in favour of Plesner's right to freedom of expression. Britney Spears video On 19 November 2007 Louis Vuitton, in further efforts to prevent counterfeiting, successfully sued Britney Spears for violating anti-counterfeiting laws. A part of the music video for the song "Do Somethin'" shows fingers tapping on the dashboard of a hot pink Hummer with what looks like Louis Vuitton's "Cherry Blossom" design bearing the LV logo. Britney Spears herself was not found liable, but a civil court in Paris ordered Sony BMG and MTV Online to stop showing the video. They were also fined €80,000 to each group. An anonymous spokesperson for LVMH stated that the video constituted an "attack" on Louis Vuitton's brands and its luxury image. S-Lock copyright in Hong Kong In another legal warning dated back to September 2012, Louis Vuitton had filed complaints against two small retail shops in Hong Kong for allegedly violating its intellectual property rights in relation to the "S-Lock" design for Louis Vuitton's handbags. According to the Hong Kong-based Apple Daily newspaper, the company was seeking compensation of HK$40,000 (around $US 5,000) and a public apology in the newspaper. The shopkeeper refused to pay, and Louis Vuitton demanded further damages up to HK$150,000 in February 2013. The shop claimed to have sourced two such handbags from Japan at around HK$120, which it retailed at HK$220. In the case of the other small shop selling two handbags, they argued with Louis Vuitton that the designs were different,