Genre: Information/Explanation

The Winchester Mystery House was the estate of Sarah Winchester , widow of gun magnate William Winchester . Legend has it that Mrs. Winchester believed the home was haunted by people killed by Winchester rifles , and only constant construction and remodeling of the mansion would appease the ghosts . Nightly séances informed her building plans , and construction financed by the Winchester rifle fortune continued day and night from 1884 until her death in 1922 , resulting in a 160 room mansion . The current owners of the mansion registered the " Winchester Mystery House " word mark and a logo with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office , and have extensively marketed the tourist attraction locally and internationally . In 2008 , the owners entered into an exclusive movie agreement with a production company for use of the house as a location , and for use of certain trademarks and copyrights in promotional materials . The following year , the Defendant , another production company , inquired with Plaintiff about rates for using the house for a low budget haunted house / ghost story movie . Plaintiff declined to give Defendant location rates and mentioned that it had signed a contract with " another company for the exclusive rights to the Winchester story , " but they failed to give additional details . Defendant went ahead and filmed its movie , using Plaintiff's word mark in the film's title , " Haunting of Winchester House . " The film was loosely based on the story of Sarah Winchester , with additional fictional elements , and the DVD cover featured a shot of a different Victorian-style house . Defendant publicized production of the film on its website in July 2009 , and Plaintiff immediately sent Defendant a cease and desist letter alleging trademark infringement , which led to this lawsuit . Plaintiff's suit alleged , in part , trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act . At issue was whether Defendant's First Amendment rights protected its artistic expression and trumped Plaintiff's trademark infringement and unfair competition claims . The California court looked to the Second Circuit's Rogers test , as adopted by the Ninth Circuit , to determine the degree to which First Amendment rights narrowed the scope of Lanham Act trademark rights in the context of movie titles , recognizing that titles of films serve both a commercial and artistic function . The Ninth Circuit has held that , when a mark has assumed such a high level of cultural or historical significance that it has become a part of the public's vocabulary , a trademark owner does not have the right to control public discourse using the mark . Ultimately the appellate court agreed with Defendant and held that the First Amendment provided an absolute defense on the trademark infringement and unfair competition claims . The Winchester Mystery House had gained such historical and cultural significance that the use of Plaintiffs word mark in Defendant's movie title was protected expression , even if it was unauthorized .