Lisa Ramsey su Twitter (X) segnala un articolo da Bloomberg law che offre il link all‘Appello del 2 circuito 5 dicembre 2023, docket No. 22-1006, Vans v. MSCHF.
Il caso è intreressante , affrontando un tema di attualità: il rapporto tra diritto di marchio e quello di parodia, da inserire nel diritto alla libetà di parola.
Il problema nasce quando il secondo è esercitato da imprenditori (anche gli artisti allora possono esserlo ed anzi lo sono nel diritto della concorrenza): c’è infatti il sospetto che vogliano lucrare sulla notorietà altrui.
La corte fa qui prevalere il diritto di marchio, appellandosi alla sentenza Supreme Court del 2023 Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC e a un precedente imprtante in del 2 circuito Rogers v. Grimaldi dek 1989 per cui la parodia va bene solo se e fino a che non generi confondibilità:
<<The Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniel’s forecloses MSCHF’s argument
that Wavy Baby’s parodic message merits higher First Amendment scrutiny under Rogers. As the Court held, even if a defendant uses a mark to parody the
trademark holder’s product, Rogers does not apply if the mark is used “‘at least in
part’ for ‘source identification.’” Id. at 156 (quoting Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc.,
v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410, 414–15 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).
Here, MSCHF used Vans’ marks in much the same way that VIP Products
used Jack Daniel’s marks—as source identifiers. As discussed above and
illustrated below, VIP Products used the Jack Daniel’s bottle size, distinctive
squared-off shape, and black and white stylized text to invoke an image of Jack
Daniel’s famous whiskey bottle.
Jack Daniel’s, 599 U.S. 148–49.
Likewise, MSCHF’s design evoked myriad elements of the Old Skool
trademarks and trade dress. Among other things, MSCHF incorporates, with
distortions, the Old Skool black and white color scheme, the side stripe, the
perforated sole, the logo on the heel, the logo on the footbed, and the packaging.
See Part I, above. MSCHF included its own branding on the label and heel of the
Wavy Baby sneaker, just as VIP Products placed its logo on the toy’s hangtag. But
even the design of the MSCHF logo evokes the Old Skool logo. And unlike VIP
Products, MSCHF did not include a disclaimer disassociating it from Vans or Old
Skool shoes. See Jack Daniel’s, 599 U.S. at 150 (noting the dog toy included a
disclaimer that read: “This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery”).
A trademark is used as a “source identifier” when it is used “to identify or
brand a defendant’s goods or services” or to indicate the “‘source or origin’ of a
product.” Id. at 156 (alterations adopted). MSCHF used Vans’ trademarks—
particularly its red and white logo—to brand its own products, which constitutes
“quintessential ‘trademark use’” subject to the Lanham Act. Id. at 155 (citation
omitted); see also Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806, 812–13
(mechanic’s use of Harley-Davidson’s bar and shield motif in his logo, despite
the “humorous[]” message, was traditional trademark use subject to the
likelihood of confusion analysis).
Moreover, although MSCHF did not purport to sell the Wavy Baby under
the Vans brand, it admitted to “start[ing]” with Vans’ marks because “[n]o other
shoe embodies the dichotomies—niche and mass taste, functional and trendy,
utilitarian and frivolous—as perfectly as the Old Skool.” Jt. App’x at 353. In
other words, MSCHF sought to benefit from the “good will” that Vans—as the
source of the Old Skool and its distinctive marks—had generated over a decades-
long period. See Jack Daniel’s, 599 U.S. at 156. Notwithstanding the Wavy Baby’s
expressive content, MSCHF used Vans’ trademarks in a source-identifying
manner. Accordingly, the district court was correct when it applied the
traditional likelihood-of-confusion test instead of applying the Rogers test>>.
La composizione del conflitto di interssi è ragionevole: ok alla parodia e alla libertà di espressine, ma in termini chiari e non equivoci (cioè senza alcun rischio di confondibilità).
La parodia come interesse antagonista della privativa di marchio è tema ancora non affrontato sistematicamente.
Pur se non espressamente previsto (art. 14 dir. 2015/2436; a differenza dal diritto di autore: dir. 29-2001 art. 5.3.k), è però in generale da ammettere. Resta il compito di individuarne i confini e cioè di conciliarlo con il diritto di marchio.