Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Just A Joke: The Parody Defense In Domain Name Cases

By Stephen Feingold and Kathy Critchley
October 02, 2003

When should a third party be able to incorporate a trademark in a domain name as a form of parody? Historically the question of parody has more often been raised in copyright infringement cases where the defendant concedes that he has used a copyrighted work, but has done so in order to make a social criticism or comment. Generally courts will examine such claims by looking at whether the amount of the copyrighted work taken was no more than necessary to conjure up the original in the mind of the targeted audience and whether the parody was commenting on the copyrighted work or merely using the creativity of another to make a statement about some unrelated topic or issue. See eg, Elsmere Music, Inc v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F. Supp. 741, 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff'd, 623 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980) (finding Saturday Night Live's use of 'I Love Sodom' to be protected parody of 'I Love New York').

Parody in the trademark context is less frequent and the guidelines for evaluating it are less clear. While it has been stated that '[a] parody must convey two simultaneous ' and contradictory messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and instead is a parody,' Cliff Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Pub. Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490, 494 (2d Cir. 1989), this clear and concise statement of the law is often ignored. At one end of the spectrum the use of Mutants of Omaha as a protest against nuclear war was not a parody, even though it appears to be clearly within the Cliff Notes standard. See Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397, 398 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 933 (1988). On the opposite end of the spectrum is the recent 'Barbie' case where Judge Kozinski advised Mattel to 'chill' over the use of 'Barbie' in a song by a pop music group. See Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, ' S. Ct. ' (2003).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.