Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Can Consumer Products Be 'Expressive Works'?
The Lanham Act protects trademarks and trade dress by creating civil liability for unauthorized uses of valid marks and trade dress that are likely to cause consumer confusion. The Act's protections do not apply, however, to speech that is protected by the First Amendment. In a case that may have significant implications for the ability of mark holders to enforce their marks against many types of products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is now considering whether consumer products such as sneakers can be considered "expressive works" to which First Amendment protections can apply. Vans v. MSCHF Prod. Studio, No. 22-CV-2156 (WFK) (RML), 2022 WL 1446681 (E.D.N.Y. April 29, 2022), argued, No. 22-1006 (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2022). We report here on that case.
The 'Rogers' Test
The Lanham Act provides that any person, who, without consent "use[s] in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive … shall be liable in a civil action …." 15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(a).
Where an "expressive work" is accused of trademark infringement, however, the Rogers test — so named for Rogers v. Grimaldi, which involved a claim under the Lanham Act by dancer Ginger Rogers against a fictional movie about two dancers, titled "Ginger and Fred" — shields that work from liability "unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work." 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). As the Rogers court explained, "[b]ecause overextension of Lanham Act restrictions in the area of titles might intrude on First Amendment values, we must construe the Act narrowly to avoid such a conflict." Id. at 998.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.