ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> SIVACRACY .NET

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: SIVACRACY .NET

Right To Parody Trademarks Endorsed By Court Under New Law

By Siva Vaidhyanathan

ADVERTISEMENTS

From Law.com:

A biting satire it may not have been, but Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007), nonetheless concluded that canine chew toys fashioned after Louis Vuitton handbags were a permitted parody that did not infringe or dilute Louis Vuitton's admittedly well-known marks. Although the decision scratches little new ground in the trademark jurisprudence of parody and infringement, it was a first opportunity for an appellate court to assess parody under the new Trademark Dilution Revision Act. The court here squarely rejected a concerted, if not to say dogged, effort by Vuitton and its amicus, the International Trademark Association, which both urged a position that, in the words of the court, would "automatically" have made parodies unlawful. Id. at 264.

NO INFRINGEMENT

The Fourth Circuit, in affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment, fully applied the multi-factor test of likelihood of confusion, yet its application of the infringement test was shaped entirely by its initial assessment of what might be called the parody paradox; namely, that the parodist, to be effective, must make his or her rendering readily recognizable as the original yet just as readily distinguishable as a commentary upon the original. Louis Vuitton explains: "'A parody must convey two simultaneous -- and contradictory -- messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.' [Citation omitted.] This second message must not only differentiate the alleged parody from the original but must also communicate some articulable element of satire, ridicule, joking or amusement." 507 F.3d at 260. Under this standard, the court had little difficulty articulating the necessary element of satire, ridicule, joking or amusement despite (or because of) the fetching likeness of the two products: "The furry little 'Chewy Vuiton' imitation, as something to be chewed by a dog, pokes fun at the elegance and expensiveness of a LOUIS VUITTON handbag, which must not be chewed by a dog." Id. at 261. ...

chewy.jpg

Full post as published by SIVACRACY .NET on February 13, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Blog Posts
Search Blog Directory:

Search Blog Directory:

Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.8776 secs (new cache)