In Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, Inc., the Ninth Circuit revived a trademark infringement case previously dismissed on grounds that the First Amendment shields “expressive” trademarks from Lanham Act liability unless plaintiff can show the mark (1) has no artistic relevance to the underlying work, or (2) explicitly misleads as to its source.[1] This is known as the Rogers test, and effectively operates as a shield to trademark liability where it applies. Last year, the Supreme Court limited application of the Rogers test in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, [2] holding that it does not apply where the challenged use of a trademark is to identify the source of the defendant’s goods or services. In those instances, a traditional likelihood of confusion or dilution analysis is required.
Amira Perryman
Contact:Read more about Amira Perryman