31:
274:
writing for the panel that "suppressing an artistically relevant though ambiguous title film" on trademark grounds would "unduly restrict expression." The court held that "In sum, we hold that section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not bar a minimally relevant use of a celebrity's name in the title of
257:
This appeal presents a conflict between Rogers' right to protect her celebrated name and the right of others to express themselves freely in their own artistic work. Specifically, we must decide whether Rogers can prevent the use of the title
565:
294:
test", so-called, has since been cited by numerous courts, adopting its reasoning to protect the use of trademarks in works of creative expression. However, the
Supreme Court limited the test's applicability in
104:
282:
concurred in the judgment, but wrote separately to argue that the Second
Circuit had not needed to establish a general rule, as the rule established was unlikely to suit future, more ambiguous cases.
301:, holding unanimously that the test does not apply in cases where the alleged infringer uses the mark as a source designation for their own goods. Furthermore, a concurrence from
297:
41:
430:, 683 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2012) (depicting University and athletic trademark logos in documentary-style paintings of famous plays did not infringe the University's trademarks).
250:
253:
protection, could be liable under the Lanham Act (as well as state law) for using a celebrity's name as the title of the work. The Second
Circuit, on appeal, noted:
444:"Supreme Court Sharply Limits Applicability of Rogers v. Grimaldi Test for Trademark Infringement | Insights | Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP"
275:
an artistic work where the title does not explicitly denote authorship, sponsorship, or endorsement by the celebrity or explicitly mislead as to content."
560:
426:
555:
510:
348:
84:
30:
416:
424:(9th Cir. 2008) (depicting plaintiff's logo in a video game featuring real locations did not infringe the plaintiff's trademark rights);
443:
421:
570:
480:
Adli, Dariush G. (September 2023). "Feature: Supreme Court Nixes First
Amendment Defense to Trademark Infringement".
225:, a film about Pippo and Amelia, two Italian cabaret performers whose routine emulated the more famous pairing of
249:
The primary legal question in this case was whether the creator of an expressive work, which would be subject to
519:
575:
580:
192:
537:
366:
212:
100:
267:
216:
208:
128:
56:
221:
124:
549:
279:
271:
230:
204:
120:
52:
302:
226:
238:
183:
1989) is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "
234:
162:
188:
309:
test for having an unclear legal basis. Some commentators have argued that
266:
The lower court had previously found
Grimaldi not liable, and had granted
262:
for a fictional movie that only obliquely relates to Rogers and
Astaire.
180:
528:
176:
427:
University of
Alabama Board of Trustees v. New Life Art., Inc.
566:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit cases
417:
E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
87:; 57 USLW 2692; 10 U.S.P.Q.2d 1825; 16 Media L. Rep. 1648
270:
to
Grimaldi. The Second Circuit affirmed, with Judge
42:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit
156:
148:
140:
135:
116:
111:
96:
91:
80:
72:
64:
47:
37:
23:
298:Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
237:trademark rights, right of publicity, and was a "
506:, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) is available from:
317:test, though the case did not actually overturn
8:
233:. Rogers claimed that the film violated her
215:for production and distribution of the 1986
338:
336:
334:
29:
20:
330:
468:Jack Daniel's Props. v. VIP Prods. LLC
7:
438:
436:
14:
561:United States trademark case law
470:, 143 S. Ct. 1578, 1594 (2023).
556:1989 in United States case law
1:
187:test" for protecting uses of
597:
313:could mean the end of the
144:Newman, joined by Altimari
369: (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
161:
28:
351: (2d Cir. 1989).
367:695 F.Supp. 112
264:
255:
482:Orange County Lawyer
349:875 F.2d 994
193:intellectual freedom
571:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
405:, 875 F.2d at 1007.
393:, 875 F.2d at 1005.
381:, 875 F.2d at 1001.
16:American legal case
504:Rogers v. Grimaldi
362:Rogers v. Grimaldi
344:Rogers v. Grimaldi
199:Factual background
172:Rogers v. Grimaldi
24:Rogers v. Grimaldi
211:and film company
168:
167:
68:December 22, 1988
588:
542:
536:
533:
527:
524:
518:
515:
509:
490:
489:
477:
471:
465:
459:
458:
456:
454:
440:
431:
412:
406:
400:
394:
388:
382:
376:
370:
364:
358:
352:
346:
340:
268:summary judgment
217:Federico Fellini
209:Alberto Grimaldi
129:Thomas P. Griesa
112:Court membership
57:Alberto Grimaldi
33:
21:
596:
595:
591:
590:
589:
587:
586:
585:
546:
545:
540:
534:
531:
525:
522:
516:
513:
507:
499:
494:
493:
479:
478:
474:
466:
462:
452:
450:
448:www.skadden.com
442:
441:
434:
413:
409:
401:
397:
389:
385:
377:
373:
360:
359:
355:
342:
341:
332:
327:
305:criticized the
303:Justice Gorsuch
288:
260:Ginger and Fred
251:First Amendment
247:
222:Ginger and Fred
201:
191:that implicate
101:695 F.Supp. 112
17:
12:
11:
5:
594:
592:
584:
583:
578:
573:
568:
563:
558:
548:
547:
544:
543:
538:Google Scholar
498:
497:External links
495:
492:
491:
472:
460:
432:
407:
395:
383:
371:
353:
329:
328:
326:
323:
287:
284:
246:
243:
241:" defamation.
200:
197:
166:
165:
159:
158:
154:
153:
150:
146:
145:
142:
138:
137:
133:
132:
125:Frank Altimari
118:
117:Judges sitting
114:
113:
109:
108:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
82:
78:
77:
74:
70:
69:
66:
62:
61:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
593:
582:
579:
577:
576:Dance culture
574:
572:
569:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
554:
553:
551:
539:
530:
521:
512:
511:CourtListener
505:
501:
500:
496:
487:
483:
476:
473:
469:
464:
461:
449:
445:
439:
437:
433:
429:
428:
423:
422:547 F.3d 1095
419:
418:
411:
408:
404:
399:
396:
392:
387:
384:
380:
375:
372:
368:
363:
357:
354:
350:
345:
339:
337:
335:
331:
324:
322:
320:
316:
312:
311:Jack Daniel's
308:
304:
300:
299:
293:
285:
283:
281:
280:Thomas Griesa
276:
273:
272:Jon O. Newman
269:
263:
261:
254:
252:
244:
242:
240:
236:
232:
231:Ginger Rogers
228:
224:
223:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:Ginger Rogers
198:
196:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
173:
164:
160:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:Case opinions
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:Jon O. Newman
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
99:
97:Prior history
95:
90:
86:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
63:
60:
58:
54:
53:Ginger Rogers
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
581:Fred Astaire
503:
485:
481:
475:
467:
463:
453:December 27,
451:. Retrieved
447:
425:
415:
410:
402:
398:
390:
386:
378:
374:
361:
356:
343:
318:
314:
310:
306:
296:
291:
289:
277:
265:
259:
256:
248:
227:Fred Astaire
220:
202:
184:
171:
170:
169:
157:Laws applied
92:Case history
85:875 F.2d 994
51:
18:
414:See, e.g.,
239:false light
149:Concurrence
76:May 5, 1989
550:Categories
529:OpenJurist
235:Lanham Act
189:trademarks
163:Lanham Act
131:(S.D.N.Y.)
81:Citations
502:Text of
488:: 33–36.
245:Decision
203:Actress
195:issues.
141:Majority
105:S.D.N.Y.
181:2d Cir.
73:Decided
59:, et al
541:
535:
532:
526:
523:
520:Justia
517:
514:
508:
403:Rogers
391:Rogers
379:Rogers
365:,
347:,
319:Rogers
315:Rogers
307:Rogers
292:Rogers
286:Impact
278:Judge
185:Rogers
175:, 875
152:Griesa
65:Argued
325:Notes
290:The "
219:film
207:sued
179:994 (
107:1988)
38:Court
455:2023
229:and
177:F.2d
213:MGM
55:v.
552::
486:65
484:.
446:.
435:^
420:,
333:^
321:.
127:,
123:,
457:.
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
