Remove Artistic Work Remove Copying Remove Fair Use Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Trademark and Copyright Cases to Watch in 2023

The IP Law Blog

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Andy Warhol Foundation made fair use of a photo of the late artist Prince. In short, the matter at issue will address when a work is sufficiently transformative to qualify for fair use protection under the Copyright Act. Hetronic International.

article thumbnail

Trademark and Copyright Cases to Watch in 2023

LexBlog IP

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Andy Warhol Foundation made fair use of a photo of the late artist Prince. In short, the matter at issue will address when a work is sufficiently transformative to qualify for fair use protection under the Copyright Act. Hetronic International.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Not Funny! Unanimous SCOTUS in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Holds That Parody Does Not Implicate First Amendment Concerns, But Only Implicates Likelihood of Confusion

LexBlog IP

The trademark law provides that the “noncommercial” use of a mark cannot count as dilution. We hold only that it is not ap­propriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods—in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark.

article thumbnail

WIPIP 2022, Session 6 (TM)

43(B)log

Summary of current treatment: Although courts have often referred to “expressive” or “artisticworks as shorthand for the scope of Rogers, they have applied it to speech that quali?es Thus, it may not even be descriptive fair use to use the name of the religion from which the dissenters have parted.

article thumbnail

Free Speech, Chatting About Friends, Kraken/Crackin’ On AI, & Thinking About Fred & Ginger: Generated Content, Amici Curiae, & A Case About Jack Daniels That Dances Around Trademark Issues And Leaves Some Things To Chew On

LexBlog IP

VIP Products, on the other hand, argued that their toy was protected under the doctrine of “fair use” as it was being used in a non-trademark sense, and that it was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. Rogers , 875 F.2d ” Id. ” Id. In VIP Products v. Jack Daniels Products , 953 F.3d