3 ms·
Your example is so absurd I feel it hardly warrants comment. If a window manufacturer puts out windows with the MS windows logo, and when you open it it makes t
by hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Your example is so absurd I feel it hardly warrants comment. If a window manufacturer puts out windows with the MS windows logo, and when you open it it makes the XP startup sound, then yes, I think it would be infringing. But nobody thinks a plain window would be confused with MS Windows.
I don't see any problem with this ruling whatsoever. It says nothing about parody for non-commercial purposes. The dog toy owner was specifically trying to leverage JD's brand for his own economic benefit. And it's not like a patent, where patent owners try to remove the ability to make something that sometimes isn't even that novel in the public sphere.
Slippery slope arguments are incredibly weak here if you look at the actual content of the ruling.
- stonogo 3y agoThere is no 'non-commercial' requirement for protection of parody, thank god.
- simiones 3y agoIt also says nothing about parody for commercial purposes. It just says that you can't claim parody as a defense of your own trademark. If the dog toys had had some specific trademark of the original company, but then also some parody of Jack Daniels bottles on them, the ruling may well have agreed that they are protected under the parody exceptions. The problem was not that they were profitting off of their parody, but that they used the parody itself as their only trademark. It's as if instead of the band AQUA releasing a song called "Barbie Girl", there had been a band called "Barbie Girl" which used the Barbie logo in all of their branding and album covers, and then tried to claim they were just a parody.