Source: https://everythingtrademarks.com/2015/07/19/the-parody-defense-is-dead-long-live-the-parody-defense/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:27:29+00:00

Document:
The Parody Defense is Dead. Long Live The Parody Defense! | The Parody Defense is Dead. Long Live The Parody Defense!
The Parody Defense is Dead. Long Live The Parody Defense!
It’s a whole different story at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), where parody claims and defenses never win.
Based on my review of final decisions in the TTAB’s online database (which dates back to 1996) and cited cases, it appears the TTAB has never upheld a parody claim or defense. If you’re aware of one, please let me know.
The discrepancy is largely a result of the TTAB’s limited jurisdiction — extending only to issues related to trademark registrability — whereas infringement suits address trademark use via civil action in court, where judges have the power to enjoin use and are more receptive to free speech concerns and fair use exceptions.
However, with the specter of the Supreme Court’s B&B v. Hargis opinion looming over TTAB registration rulings, which now may have preclusive effect on infringement actions, it’s time to re-evaluate how parodies are treated at the TTAB and whether parodists should even pursue registration.
For trademark purposes, “[a] `parody’ is defined as a simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner … A parody must convey two simultaneous — and contradictory — messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 366 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). This second message must not only differentiate the alleged parody from the original but must also communicate some articulable element of satire, ridicule, joking, or amusement. Thus, “[a] parody relies upon a difference from the original mark, presumably a humorous difference, in order to produce its desired effect.” Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir.1987) (finding the use of “Lardashe” jeans for larger women to be a successful and permissible parody of “Jordache” jeans).
A parody defense can arise in two contexts: (1) in response to an allegation that the parody is likely to create consumer confusion with a complainant’s mark, in which case the parody is weighed along with other factors in the overall likelihood of confusion analysis; and (2) as an affirmative defense to a dilution claim based on the fair use exclusion in the federal dilution statute (codified in the Lanham Act at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A)).
During this same time period, the Fourth Circuit issued its CHEWY VUITON (Louis Vuitton) opinion and the Second Circuit its final ruling in CHARBUCKS (Starbucks). Both parody defendant wins at the federal appellate level.
LESSBUCKS COFFEE – “joking uses of trademarks are deserving of less protection when the object of the joke is the mark of a directly competing product” citing Deere & Co. v. MTD Products. Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 32 USPQ2d 1936, 1940 (2nd Cir. 1994).
15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A)(emphasis added).
The fair use exclusion only applies to uses that are “other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services” … which is another way of saying “other than as a trademark.” Naturally, the TTAB equates filing to register a trademark with trademark use, which is required to perfect registration. In THE HOUSE THAT JUICE BUILT, an augmented TTAB panel stated: “The fair use exclusion is typically inapplicable when registration is sought, and it does not apply here.” As a result, the act of filing to register a trademark will “typically” bar a USPTO applicant from relying on the statutory fair use exclusion in response to a dilution claim.
In CHEWY VUITON, the inquiry didn’t end with the statute’s safe harbor provision.
New York Yankees Partnership v. IET Products and Services, Inc., 114 USPQ 2d 1497 (TTAB 2015).
Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Mktg. Grp., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1187, 1192 (TTAB 2012).
The Board concluded: “the likelihood of confusion will usually trump any First Amendment concerns.” And it did here as it “usually” has (every single time).
The language in the Board’s decisions include a few notable adverb qualifiers — “usually trump” … “virtually impossible” … “typically inapplicable” — but its results are absolute. And in light of B&B v. Hargis, its reasoning no longer seems applicable. The TTAB is now on near equal footing with district court — its decisions may have preclusive effect in infringement litigation: “So long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the TTAB are materially the same as those before the district court, issue preclusion should apply.” B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. ___ (2015).
A win at the TTAB can be cashed-in at federal court to restrain use with injunctive relief, which is easier to obtain once a likelihood of confusion has been found. By the Boards own logic, a First Amendment claim should now be given greater weight and not dismissed as being outside the scope of issues it adjudicates.
For these same reasons, parodists must consider whether it makes sense to file an application to register a parody trademark. Filing an application may alert the subject mark holder; it demonstrates an intent to use the parody as a trademark, creating an almost per se bar to any fair use exception to parody a famous mark; and, if a contested proceeding ensues, requires relying on a defense that has never succeeded at the TTAB.
Once judgment is entered, the TTAB decision may provide grounds to enjoin all use and seek damages in federal court. Sometimes the best course of action is to just use a trademark and not register it. A parody trademark may be one of those times. At least until the TTAB attempts to reconcile its reasoning from prior holdings with a post-B&B landscape.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1125
 v. 
 § 1125
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.