Is Free Riding Aided by Parody to Sneak between the Cracks of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act

Authors

Corina I. Cacovean

Abstract

Dilution as a form of intrusion on a trademark has been the object of intense consumer and competition discourses in United States. From the United States Supreme Court decision in Moseley v. VSecret Catalogue, in 2003, to the Fourth Circuit's decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, in 2006, the concept of dilution has become more sophisticated and its intersection with unfair competition and First Amendment law is far from being settled. This note is an attempt to answer the questions of whether the courts, by broadly interpreting the TDRA as being designed to protect freedom of speech, allow free riders to hide behind commercial parodies and make money by exploiting the good names and trademarks of famous marks. To the extent such finding is positive, it formulates a test designed to alleviate the difficulties in distinguishing the blurred line between freedom of speech and free riding.

Recommended Citation

Corina I. Cacovean, Is Free Riding Aided by Parody to Sneak between the Cracks of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 31 UC Law SF Comm. & Ent. L.J. 441 (2009).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol31/iss3/4