4 ms·
Sounds like the product has branding marks, perhaps a tag, insignia etc., and those carried on with the same theme and thus were the actual infringing elements
by LeonB 3y ago
Sounds like the product has branding marks, perhaps a tag, insignia etc., and those carried on with the same theme and thus were the actual infringing elements — not the product itself.
That would make perfect sense. The parody product alone is unlikely to be the entire issue. If so, it would make no sense at all, certainly at 9-0.
It does make the whole case a bit of a non-issue.
- gwd 3y agoReading the article closely, SCOTUS seems to be ruling on a legal technicality; specifically, whether the "Rogers test" applies to the case in question. A lower court said it did, which made the toy-maker's case way easier. SCOTUS says it didn't, which means the case is now just "normal"; it doesn't at all mean they've lost: > Elizabeth Brannen, a partner at Stris & Maher, said Jack Daniel's victory "could turn out to be pyrrhic." The whiskey maker will still have to prove VIP's toys are likely to confuse potential customers into thinking it was affiliated with them in order to win its infringement case. > "The likelihood of confusion analysis will still take the challenged product's funny message into account," Brannen said. She noted that the high court said consumers are "not so likely to think that the maker of a mocked product is itself doing the mocking."
- tyre 3y agoYes, it’s an technicality and this is a frequent outcome in Supreme Court cases. They often rule as narrowly as possible, regularly on technicalities. It fits the separation of powers to create as little legal reality that relies on precedent. Lower courts almost always have enough to go on and Congress ultimately makes the laws. Things like the Rogers test are inexact and need rulings themselves, but once that’s sorted out then a lower court knows how to rule.