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.
iEntry 10th Anniversary
RSS
Newsletter
Advertising






















I thought Wal-Mart was a...
If you talk to any displaced small business store in any town in America, I'd think you'd get a consensus that Wal-Mart is a notorious terrorist organization.