I have to learn a whole lot of corporations law before I get around to studying for my trademark exam, but here are two fact patterns that raise issues of trademark fair use:
- Anti-advertising activists release a sneaker called the “blackSpot”
in order to raise awareness of Nike’s use of sweatshop labor and offer an alternative made by fairly-paid, unionized workers.
They plan to use this “subvertising campaign” to promote the sneakers:
phil knight had a dream. he’d sell shows. he’d sell dreams he’d get rich. he’d use sweatshops if he had to.
then along came a new shoe. plan. simple. cheap. fair. designed for only thing:
kicking phil’s ass.
the unswoosher.
To what extent can Nike use trademark law to prevent this “un-marketing” campaign? What defenses can Adbusters offer?
(via BoingBoing.)
2. Martin Schwimmer offers another hypo for discussion at the Trademark Blog: George W. Bush on The Apprentice:
View this political video parodying The Apprentice, then read this decision in the Mastercard v. Nader2000 case.
Discuss NBC’s and Trump’s rights against TrueMajority (source of the video).
Comments are open.
