ThinkGeek wrote:Recently we got the best-ever cease and desist letter. We're no stranger to the genre, so what could possibly make this one stand out from the rest?
First, it's 12 pages long and very well-researched (except on one point); it even includes screengrabs of the offending item from our site. And we know they're not messing around because they invested in the best and brightest legal minds.
But what makes this cease and desist so very, very special is that it's for a fake product we launched for April Fool's day.
It wasn't the iCade, or the Dharma Initiative Clock, or even the Tribbles 'n' Bits Breakfast Cereal.
Metroid wrote:sure they're using a copyrighted slogan to promote a fake product, but can they really be sued over it?
Yeah, trademark law doesn't care whether it pertains to something as factitious as unicorns. Goes to show pork people simply have no humor. Or the lawfirm representing the Nat'l Pork Board are hurting for billable hours.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. This is no different than some of the spoofs SNL does, or the satire Cracked or Mad magazine puts out regularly. As long as they're not actually selling a product or promoting their website with the slogan, I don't see the problem.
3. “Parody” / “Satire” Distinction: a. After concluding that parody could be considered fair use, the Court qualified its holding: if the new work “has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh,” the work is less transformative, and other fair use factors, such as whether the new work was sold commercially, loom larger. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 580. The Court explained further that while a parody targets and mimics the original work to make its point, a satire uses the work to criticize something else, and therefore requires justification for the very act of borrowing. See id. at 581. As a result, the Court appears to favor parody