Subject: Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:38:15 -0800

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen@gatech.edu):

> Rick Moen wrote:
> > Claiming it's parody isn't an effective
> > defence, nor does it matter that your usage was non-commercial.  It's a
> > tort.
> 
> Wouldn't any parody fall afoul of this, though?

A non-commercial send-up where Mickey Mouse in which he and Minnie are
not doing something profane, and otherwise is not dragging that
trademarked image through the mud morally, but where they and Disney are
merely made to look silly, would not constitute trademark disparagement.
(I'd want to work in Jack Valenti, personally.)

 
> > Ordinarily, proving trademark infringment requires showing
> > likelihood of confusion.
> 
> I thought this was supposed to be the *only* justification for
> trademark protection (protecting the consumer from confusion).

It's the only justification (that comes immediately to mind) for laws
prohibiting trademark _infringement_.  The other two torts have
different rationales.