This past weekend one of my sons said, “Dad, I have a good blog topic for you.” After he explained, it was clear, yes, son you do! So, he sent me the photo to the left. It is one that he recently snapped at a place that sells Halloween costumes.
As an aside, I love it when family members, friends, colleagues, our wonderful guest bloggers, and you dear readers, send potential blog ideas and topics! So, please keep them coming!
Anyway, my son’s photo reminded me of a similar t-shirt and I now remember seeing it worn by some folks during the Minnesota State Fair a few weeks ago. Since I captured no photos at the time, I had forgotten about it until now. As it turns out, you can buy the shirt I saw online.
The Etsy site where it is being sold describes the above shirt to the right this way:
“This t-shirt reads Zombies Eat Flesh and is shaped like a very famous sub logo. This decal measures approximately 11 x 13 inches and is great for all you zombie lovers!”
So, I’m left wondering why hasn’t Subway jumped on this zombie with both boots? After all, we don’t only have a famous mark targeted by this parody, but a very famous mark, thanks Etsy.
And, Subway ought to have some free time on its hands now that the FOOTLONG trademark debacle is behind it, unless it is still working on removing those millions of false TM notices.
Or, perhaps Subway just hasn’t gotten around to Etsy yet, as another online seller has indicated his Eat Fresh parody shirts are: “NO LONGER FOR SALE DUE TO THE MAN.”
I’m thinking that whoever created and is using the stylized ZOMBIES EAT FLESH trademark has zero chance of successfully registering it (no surprise, no application has been filed, to date), I just can’t see the USPTO allowing it, can you?
TTAB cases involving a discussion of parody — in the context of likelihood of confusion — include at least the following:
- Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Mktg. Grp., Inc., 102 USPQ2d 1187, 1192 (TTAB 2012) (sustaining oppositions to applications for the mark CRACKBERRY, for a variety of online computer services and clothing items, on the bases of a likelihood of confusion and likelihood of dilution by blurring with the mark BLACKBERRY, for handheld devices, including smartphones, and related goods and services, noting that “likelihood of confusion will usually trump any First Amendment concerns”);
- Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC v. Ruben, 78 USPQ2d 1741 (TTAB 2006) (holding contemporaneous use of applicant’s mark, LESSBUCKS COFFEE, and opposer’s marks, STARBUCKS and STARBUCKS COFFEE, for identical goods and services, likely to cause confusion, noting that “parody is unavailing to applicant as an outright defense and, further, does not serve to distinguish the marks”); and
- Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Miller, 211 USPQ 816, 820 (TTAB 1981) (holding CLOTHES ENCOUNTERS for clothing, and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND for t-shirts, likely to cause confusion, noting that the “right of the public to use words in the English language in a humorous and parodic manner does not extend to use of such words as trademarks if such use conflicts with the prior use and/or registration of the substantially same mark by another”).
As if that isn’t enough, couldn’t you see this well-settled TTAB precedent being relied on by the USPTO during ex parte examination or by the TTAB during an inter partes proceeding?
- When present, the fame of a mark is “a dominant factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis . . . independent of the consideration of the relatedness of the goods.” Recot , 214 F.3d at 1328, 54 USPQ2d at 1898; L’Oreal S.A. v. Marcon, 102 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (TTAB 2012) (noting that “a finding that a mark enjoys significant fame expands the scope of protection which might be accorded a lesser-known mark” and that “the fame of a registered or previously used mark can never support a junior party”); and
- If there is any doubt as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the prior registrant. See In re Shell Oil Co., 992 F.2d 1204, 1209, 26 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Hyper Shoppes (Ohio), Inc., 837 F.2d 463, 464-65, 6 USPQ2d 1025, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re G.B.I. Tile & Stone, Inc., 92 USPQ2d 1366, 1372 (TTAB 2009).
But, if Subway were to actually bring a trademark infringement and/or trademark dilution action in federal district court, would that be a walk in the park with this zombie, or the cemetery?
I’m thinking that the federal district court takes a much closer look at the parody defense and pays more attention to First Amendment concerns. Do you agree that the zombie has a better than zero chance of successfully defending on parody grounds?
If so, doesn’t this example help make the point, again, about the difference between the right to use and the right to register? They aren’t necessarily coextensive rights are they?
Shouldn’t a federal district court who is asked to decide likelihood of confusion and likelihood of dilution — with injunctive relief, damages, and other monetary relief hanging in the balance (instead of just the right to register) — have the authority and obligation to consider these issues fresh, without having its hands tied by a earlier TTAB decision affirming a registration refusal or granting an opposition to register on likelihood of confusion grounds? There is simply more at the stake when the right to use is challenged and monetary relief is sought, it seems to me.
Moreover, I can’t believe that the TTAB wants the pressure of having its decisions also determine liability for trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims in the federal district courts.
So, let’s hope the U.S. Supreme Court gets it right and recognizes the difference between the right to register and the right to use, in the upcoming B & B Hardware case!
Please join me and the renown Bill Barber of the Pirkey Barber firm discuss these important issues at the Midwest IP Institute in Minneapolis on Thursday.