Remove Artistic Work Remove Fair Use Remove Presentation 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

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

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

As we previously blogged, the issues presented in the care were: Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark infringement claims.

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

article thumbnail

Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. She writes and teaches in the trademark law area, and recently wrote a paper with Professor Christine Haight Farley that focuses on speech-protective doctrines in trademark infringement law.] By Guest Blogger Lisa P. Ramsey [Lisa P.

Trademark 101
article thumbnail

USC IP year in review, TM/ROP

43(B)log

My presentation, galloping across a bunch of developments. Begin with legislative action: Trademark Modernization Act, Which introduces three of the big themes of the year: (1) trademark use, (2) the harm of infringement, and (3) the role of the First Amendment in limiting the scope of trademark rights.

IP 94