"VIP argued that under the standard developed by the Second Circuit in Rogers v. Grimaldi 875 F. 2d 994 (2d Cir. 1980), an infringement claim against an expressive work must be dismissed unless a complainant proves the work "(1) has no artistic relevance to the underlying work and (2) explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work.""
"VIP lost at the Arizona district court level, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that VIP's use did fall under Rogers and that BAD SPANIELS was parody falling under the non-commercial use exclusion allowing for parody. Jack Daniel's took the case to the Supreme Court. In its January 2023, decision, the Court offered clarification only with infringement and dilution causes of action when the allegedly infringing parody marks are used in a pure trademark sense, i.e., as a source identifier."
Courts in 2025 grappled with the boundary between trademark protections under the Lanham Act and First Amendment defenses for parody and political speech. Brand owners assert federally protected trademark and trade dress rights while satirists and parody manufacturers rely on carved-out fair use and noncommercial exceptions. The Rogers v. Grimaldi standard informed disputes over expressive works and source confusion. The Ninth Circuit found BAD SPANIELS to be parody eligible for exclusion, leading to Supreme Court review that clarified limits when parody marks function as source identifiers. Several related disputes remained unresolved or settled, leaving tensions intact.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]