Re: Trademark dilution

On 3/12/98, Robert Cumbow <cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> wrote:
>
> I think satire and parody ALWAYS come down to the First Amendment. In
> addition, most trademark actions against satirists and parodists are not
> brought as infringement actions, because there's usually no likelihood
> of confusion.

Most, but not all: See, for example, Hormel v. Henson, in which Hormel tried (but failed) to make a claim that the Muppets' new Spa'am character (a slovenly pig) did not merely dilute Hormel's SPAM mark, but also infringed in the traditional "likely to confuse" sense. Hormel put on evidence that newspaper accounts had confused the names SPAM and Spa'am.

Don't get me wrong; I don't disagree with your point. I just think it's worth noting that SOME trademark owners are willing to sue parodists under the traditional rubric.

-Ari

Ari Kahan
<akahan[_at_]netcom.com>

--
As an anti-spam measure, my mail software ignores any mail without the word
"Sara" in the Subject: line, unless the sender is already on my "no-bounce"
list.  If you want to be sure that your mail reaches me, put the word
"Sara" in the Subject: line.

finger akahan[_at_]netcom.com for PGP Public Key.