Under Rogers, the threshold for artistic relevance is satisfied unless the use has no artistic relevance to the underlying work. This prong ensures that the alleged infringer intended an artistic, noncommercial association with the trademark owner's mark. The court held that Warner Brothers's use of the Diophy bag met this low threshold because the references to the bag in the movie added to the perception of Alan as a socially inept and comically misinformed character. However, Louis Vuitton argued that the court could not determine that the bag's use was artistically relevant until after discovery. The court rejected this argument and held that it was satisfied that Warner Brothers' use of the bag, whether or not intentional, was intended to create an artistic association with Louis Vuitton and that there was no indication that its use was commercially motivated.

Louis Vuitton also argued that the explicitly misleading prong of Rogers, was not limited to confusion about the source or sponsorship of the movie, but extended to confusion about the source or sponsorship of Diophy's bag. The court noted that it was not a coincidence that courts examine confusion in relation to the defendant's artistic work, here the movie, rather than to another entity's product. The court explained that this narrow construction of the Lanham Act accommodated the public's interest in free expression.

The court pointed out that Louis Vuitton's confusion allegations involved the bag, not the movie. As Louis Vuitton failed to allege that Warner Brothers used the knock-off bag to mislead consumers into believing that Louis Vuitton endorsed or produced the movie, the court held that the complaint failed to allege the type of confusion that could potentially overcome Rogers. The court further held that in this case the likelihood of confusion was at best minimal when balanced against the First Amendment concerns.

The court rejected Louis Vuitton's argument that the Rogers test could not be assessed on a motion to dismiss, noting that Second Circuit case law has suggested that it would be appropriate to apply the Rogers test if the court was satisfied that the products or marks were so dissimilar that no question of fact was presented. The court then held that there was no likelihood of confusion that viewers would believe that the knock-off bag was a real Louis Vuitton bag merely because a fictional character claimed that it was in the context of a fictional movie. The court also held that there was no likelihood of confusion that this statement would cause viewers to believe that Louis Vuitton approved of Warner Brothers' use of the knock-off bag.