An Analysis of Federal Trademark Dilution Law's
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION: AN ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION LAW’S IMPACT ON FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH Margaret Ann Eason A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Mass Communication in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Chapel Hill 2014 Approved by: Michael R. Hoefges Deborah R. Gerhadt Heidi Hennink-Kaminski © 2014 Margaret Eason ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Margaret Eason: Guilt By Association: An Analysis of Federal Trademark Dilution Law’s Impact On First Amendment Speech (under the direction of Michael R. Hoefges) Trademark dilution law allows famous mark owners to enjoin certain mark uses that could lessen the uniqueness of the famous mark or else damage its reputation and goodwill. The ability to enjoin these unauthorized mark use, however, may sometimes conflict with the constitutional rights of individuals who wish to use famous marks in First Amendment speech such as parody, criticism or commentary. This thesis first analyzes the legislative history of the two federal trademark dilution statutes, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA) and the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) to better understand how these laws accommodate First Amendment speech rights. It then analyzes 35 federal trademark dilution cases involving a First Amendment-related defense to understand how courts have applied these laws and whether this is consistent with the legislative intent of the two statutes. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Michael Hoefges Dr. Heidi Hennink-Kaminski and Prof. Deborah Gerhardt for their guidance and support. I am particularly thankful to my chair, Dr. Hoefges, for his assistance and saint-like patience during this long and arduous process. Finally, I am forever grateful for the constant love and support of my family, and particularly my wonderful and loving partner, Blaine Willis. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: TRADEMARK DILUTION LAW AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT ....................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................................5 Understanding Trademark Law and Theory ............................................................5 The Evolution of Trademark Dilution Law in the United States ..........................10 Literature Review ...........................................................................................................15 Trademarks as Symbols and Speech ......................................................................15 Dilution Law as a Unique Threat to First Amendment Speech ............................21 The FTDA and the TDRA: Statutory Protections for First Amendment Speech ..................................................................................................................23 Summary of Scholarship .......................................................................................30 Research Questions ........................................................................................................31 Methodology ..................................................................................................................32 Outline ............................................................................................................................33 CHAPTER TWO: THE LANGUAGE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE FTDA AND TDRA ......................................................................................................................34 The Defeated Dilution Provisions of the Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988 ........34 The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 ...............................................................36 The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 ............................................................45 v CHAPTER THREE: FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH UNDER THE FTDA ................60 Expressive or Artistic Use, Including Parody ................................................................62 Non-Commercial Use in an “Artistic Work” .........................................................62 Commercial, Non-Diluting Trademark Parodies ..................................................70 Commercial and Diluting Uses .............................................................................74 Direct Criticism or Commentary Regarding the Mark Owner ......................................78 Uses Found Actionable and Diluting ....................................................................79 Uses Found to be Non-Commercial ......................................................................92 Non-Commercial Political Speech ..............................................................................103 Chapter Summary and Analysis ..................................................................................107 CHAPTER FOUR: FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH UNDER THE TDRA ................111 Commercial Uses of a Mark in Parody, Criticism or Commentary ............................114 Actionable but Non-diluting Use: Parodies Used As a Designation of Source ..........................................................................................114 Actionable And Diluting Uses: Failed Commercial Parodies, Puns and Satire .....................................................................................................125 Non-Actionable, Protected Commercial “Fair Use” ............................................130 Uses Protected Under the TDRA As Non-Commercial ..............................................132 Uses in Books, Movies, Music and Art ..............................................................132 Consumer Product Reviews ................................................................................137 Non-Commercial Use of Marks in Criticism and Commentary about a Mark Owner’s Viewpoints and Practices .....................................................................141 Political Speech ...................................................................................................149 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................150 vi CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS, OBSERVATIONS, REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................154 Interpreting the Legislative History of the FTDA and TDRA ....................................156 The FTDA and the First Amendment .................................................................156 The TDRA and the First Amendment .................................................................160 Treatment of First Amendment Speech under the FTDA ...........................................165 Classically Commercial Uses .............................................................................165 Interpretation and Application of the Non-Commercial Use Exclusion ..............168 Treatment of First Amendment Speech under the TDRA ..........................................186 Classically Commercial Parody Uses .................................................................188 Interpretation and Applications of the TDRA’s Statutory Exclusions ................192 The Standard of Harm ..........................................................................................195 Comparative Analysis of FTDA and TDRA Cases ....................................................197 Artistic Works ......................................................................................................198 Political Speech ....................................................................................................199 “Lighthearted” Product Parody ............................................................................200 Online Criticism and Commentary about the Mark Owner: A Possible Circuit Split ......................................................................................................................203 Conclusions .................................................................................................................207 Parody, Commentary and Criticism Have Been Generally Well-Protected Under Federal Dilution Law ..........................................................................................207 Dilution by Blurring is a Substitute “Free Riding” Statute ..................................210 Final Reflections .................................................................................................213 vii APPENDIX 1: THE FEDERAL TRADEMARK DILUTION ACT OF 1995 ...............217 APPENDIX 2: THE TRADEMARK DILUTION REVISION ACT OF 2006 ...............220 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................224 viii CHAPTER 1 TRADEMARK DILUTION LAW AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT I. INTRODUCTION Critics agree that one of the most innovative movies to debut at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival was the low-budget horror film Escape From Tomorrow.1 The movie, which was filmed secretly and without permission at Disney’s two theme parks, tells the story of one family’s trip to Disneyland. But rather than “the happiest place on earth,” the Disneyland depicted