[W]e need not in this case settle
upon a precise evaluation of the strength of the mark or the degree of likelihood
of confusion. As our discussion below
indicates, we conclude that the First Amendment interests in artistic
expression so clearly outweigh whatever consumer confusion that might exist on
these facts that we must necessarily conclude that there has been no violation
of the Lanham Act with respect to the paintings, prints, and calendars.
Congratulations to Mr. Moore, the artist, and to Mark
McKenna, who organized the IP professors’ amicus brief. The court declined to
consider some arguments New Life didn’t make, but I think the amicus brief set forth
important arguments making clear what was at stake, and will be useful in
future battles as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment