WebProNews

I say this gets overturned on appeal.

This is another case of a Judge legislating from the bench.

First; I can't see the parody. I have never heard of Wal-mart having had anything to do with the Holocaust. So what is being parodied? I *can* see the terrorist idea mentioned above geting by as a parody.

Second; the ruling it  "was not likely that people would confuse Wal-Mart's trademarks with Smith's parodies" misses the point. The Judge labels the shirts a criticism. A criticism that is untrue is not a criticism. It is a slander.

Third; A false comparison can damage the Trademark. If people believe there is an association when there is not, the mark is given a new unfavorable meaning. This then goes beyond First Ammendment rights.

This guy is using Wal-marts name because he couldn't sell his shirts without trading on that name.  The simple fact is, a pun is not a parody, and this dope of a Judge can't seem to tell the difference.