Remove Artistic Work Remove Fair Use Remove Law 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

Poking Fun or Making a Buck?

LexBlog IP

Supreme Court in June issued a decision involving trademark law. Jack Daniel’s brought trademark infringement claims against VIP Products, a company that produces a “Bad Spaniels” line of dog toys. The Court reasoned that the toys themselves were products, rather than artistic works.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

Intellectual Property Law Blog

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.” 1125(c)(3)(A).

Fair Use 130
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.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

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.”

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

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.”

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 The key here is that when I say fraud, I do not mean fraudulent intent, but materially deceptive effect. The 9th Circuit in Bosley v.