Re: Trademark dilution

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Barbara Brudno <bbiplaw[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bob Cumbow & other Cni-Copyright members:
>
> I agree with Bob that parody/satire essentially involves First Amendment
> issues, but I wish to correct what may be a misimplication inherent in
> Bob's message (response to a prior query) that there are no precedent
> for satire/parody defenses to dilution claims. While there may not yet
> be a case involving a dilution claim under the recent amendment to the
> Lanham Act, sec. 43a (federal anti-dilution statutory cause of action)
> that upholds a parody/satire defense with or w/o reference to or an
> express reliance on one or more of the three enumerated statutory
> exceptions to a claim for dilution, state law, including that of Calif.
> & New York , is replete with judicial decisions involving parody/satire
> defenses to trademark/business name dilution claims, whether under state
> statutes and/or the common law.
>
> For anyone who wishes to discuss this in more detail or who is
> interested in particular cases, feel free to contact me. I also suggest
> that you look at the dilution chapter (section?) in McCarthy's treatise
> on Trademarks & Unfair Competition.

What about the Dr. Seuss and Hormel/Henson cases that dealt with dilution and parody--one coming out for the plaintiff and one for the defendant? No real 1st Am. implications there in either one. I am away from my cites--I'll post them if someone else doesn't get to them first.

Adrienne L. Meddock
Assistant Dean/Evening Division
NCCU School of Law
<ameddock[_at_]bambi.acc.nccu.edu> Received on Mon Mar 16 1998 - 19:25:21 GMT