Intellectual Property Law Blog

JUNE 16, 2023

2 on your Tennessee carpet” tarnishes the Jack Daniels trademark. The District Court also held that the fair use exclusion for parodies under the Lanham Act’s dilution provision did not apply where the use at issue does not serve as “a designation of source for the [alleged diluter’s] own goods.” 58 (2007)). [14]

Fair Use 130

Fair Use Trademark Cease and Desist Designs 130

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

DECEMBER 11, 2023

Every commercial parodist trades on the goodwill of the famous trademark it mocks. 2007)) and the “ My Other Bag ” tote bag (Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. This is not just a new standard in trademark law, but a new standard for this ancient and important literary form. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 3d 252 (4th Cir.

Blogging 112

Blogging Trademark Branding Brands 112

LexBlog IP

JUNE 16, 2023

2 on your Tennessee carpet” tarnishes the Jack Daniels trademark. The District Court also held that the fair use exclusion for parodies under the Lanham Act’s dilution provision did not apply where the use at issue does not serve as “a designation of source for the [alleged diluter’s] own goods.”

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Cease and Desist Trademark Designs 52

LexBlog IP

JUNE 16, 2023

2 on your Tennessee carpet” tarnishes the Jack Daniels trademark. The District Court also held that the fair use exclusion for parodies under the Lanham Act’s dilution provision did not apply where the use at issue does not serve as “a designation of source for the [alleged diluter’s] own goods.”

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Cease and Desist Trademark Designs 52

LexBlog IP

SEPTEMBER 29, 2022

The level of attention of the average consumer, deemed to be reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (judgment of 10 October 2007, Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (Shape of a loudspeaker ), T‑460/05, EU:T:2007:304, paragraph 32).

Trademark 52

Trademark Registration Music Intellectual Property 52

Patently-O

DECEMBER 12, 2021

Missouri’s predominant purpose test, which inquires into whether the predominant purpose of using the famous person’s name or identity is to exploit its commercial value; or whether “the predominant purpose of the product is to make an expressive comment on or about a celebrity.” [15] 26] Which one? Sullivan , 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). [12]

Registration 69

Registration Government Advertising Advertising 69