3 ms·
Seems like a rotten decision that's going to result in guilt or innocence hinging on whether a judge finds a joke funny or not. At least it seems fairly narrow
by pessimizer 3y ago
Seems like a rotten decision that's going to result in guilt or innocence hinging on whether a judge finds a joke funny or not. At least it seems fairly narrow in that you have to be using the parody of someone else's trademark as your trademark. But it is bad. The aesthetics of judges should never be part of the law; they don't know it when they see it.
- tpmoney 3y agoThe ruling is explicitly saying that the humor of a parody doesn’t enter into the question of whether that parody is infringing on a trademark. They’re saying that using a trademark parody as a trademark must be decided on actual trademark law, not on free speech protections. That is to say regardless of how funny or not funny someone may find my starting a “Microshit Software” company, if I start aping and using Microsoft’s trade dress in selling my own products under the Microshit brand, it is the fact that I am aping another brand means I don’t get to claim “artistic expression” to avoid answering a trademark dispute. We have to actually resolve the trademark conflict because I am using the parody elements as a brand.