Pets, Inc. Case Study

670 Words2 Pages

Pets, Inc. may argue parody under 15 U.S.C §1125(c)(3)(A)(ii), to assert that they have not impaired the distinctiveness of Chapels mark, parody is not a complete defense under Trademark Dilution due to Pets, Inc.’s use of the mark as its designation of source i.e. as its trademark. In prior cases regarding parody, the court has adopted different statutory interpretations. In Harley Davidson, Inc. v Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2nd Cir. 1998), the defendant like Pets, Inc., admitted to purposively creating an association with the plaintiff’s mark, the wordings used by the CEO of Pets, Inc. are not as explicit as that of Grottanelli, however, he clearly states that he designed Petpel No. 13 to evoke fun of Chapel. His statement …show more content…

v. VIP Prods., LLC 666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (Mo., 2008) Anheuser-Busch makes a distinction between confusing and non-confusing parodies, the latter being protected as a parody. The important factors in the case were that the price point of the products was the same, they were directly competing goods and the survey showed that there was a level of confusion (30.3% were confused), in addition, consideration was placed on irreparable harm caused by the defendants use of the mark, the priority lay with the first to register the trademark, lastly the District Court considered public interest, i.e. whether the public was deceived. Similarly in Starbucks Corp v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc., 588 F3d 97 (2d Cir. 2007) the court distinguished Louis Vuitton S.A. v Haute Diggty Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) by holding that if (as in the Louis Vuitton case), the mark is used in non-competing goods, the defendant conveyed that it was not the source of the plaintiffs product and if the actual use of the mark does not impair the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark there may be an argument in favor of the defendant, however, if the defendant’s humor is not conveyed to the public, and does not increase the public identification of the plaintiff’s mark with its mark it will fail to establish

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that pets, inc. may argue parody under 15 u.s.c 1125(c)(3)(a)(ii), to assert that they have not impaired the distinctiveness of chapels mark.
  • Explains that in harley davidson inc. v grottanelli, the ceo of pets, inc, admitted to purposively creating an association with the plaintiff's mark.
Show More
Open Document