Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement; Reuters, February 15, 2023

Deirdre M. Wells, William H. Milliken, and Kristina Caggiano Kelly, Reuters; Bad Spaniel's: barking the line between permitted parody and trademark infringement

"The 9th Circuit ultimately vacated the district court's judgment on trademark infringement, based on the two-part Rogers test. The Rogers test was established in the 1989 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Rogers v. Grimaldi, and balances trademark and free speech rights. Under this test, a trademark can be used without authorization as long as it meets a minimal level of artistic expression and does not explicitly mislead consumers.

To overcome VIP's First Amendment right to humorous expression, Jack Daniel's was required to show that VIP's use of its trademarks is either (1) not artistically relevant to the underlying work, or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work. The trial court did not apply the Rogers test as part of its analysis...

The 9th Circuit's application of the Rogers test — which has traditionally been used for expressive works like movies, music, and books — to the commercial setting has garnered the attention of attorneys and brand owners alike. The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for gag gifts, novelty T-shirts, and even subtler fashion products."

It’s Iceland vs Iceland as trademark row erupts between country and frozen supermarket chain; The Conversation, 11/25/16

The Conversation; It’s Iceland vs Iceland as trademark row erupts between country and frozen supermarket chain:

"One significant factor that could count against the Icelandic government’s legal challenge is that the application for the Iceland trademark – granted in 2014 – was actually filed by the supermarket chain back in 2002. The reason it took 12 years before the mark was granted was that the application passed through a lengthy and rigorous “opposition” process, which involved the weighing up of the various pros and cons of allowing the mark from various perspectives, most notably the possibility of consumer confusion arising between the “Iceland” mark and any prior existing marks.

Given that Iceland (the country) does not itself seem to own any conflicting trademarks in the name Iceland, it’s hard to see how the Icelandic government can raise any grounds that have not already been dealt with during the application and opposition period from 2002 to 2014.

Nonetheless, the dispute brings up a pertinent question: should it ever be possible to register the name of a country, regardless of what the business is involved in and whether or not there is any likelihood of confusion?"