Ecco la decisione della Corte Suprema 8 giugno 2023, No. 22–148, in JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES, INC. v. VIP PRODUCTS LLC.
Il tema dei confini della lecita parodia/satira rispetto allo sfruttamento della notorietà altrui è sempre difficile da trattare. O meglio, quello del se e in che limiti possa darsi diritto di espressione ad imprese commerciali: agendo per lucro, infatti, è plausibile che le loro condotte mirino al lucro , invece che contribuire al democratico dibattito nella società (marketplace of ideas). Ma allora il problema potrebbe allargarsi dato che qualunque artista professionista agisce anche per lucro: viene meno la creatività? No di certo.
Comunque la Corte taglia corto: non si può nemmeno discutere di diritto di parola e di parodia (espresamente prevista, si badi, dal 15 US code § 1125.(c)(3)(A)(ii)) quando avviene nell’ambito di attività commerciale e integrando direttamente la fattispecie tipica di violazione di marchio altriu.
Il noto Rogers test che si applica appunto nella questione violazione di privativa vs. diritto di parola (per gli expressive works) non si applica, cassando la decisione di appello del 9 circuito.
Dal Syllabo:
<<(b) In this case, VIP conceded that it used the Bad Spaniels trademark and trade dress as source identifiers. And VIP has said and done more in the same direction with respect to Bad Spaniels and other similar products. The only question remaining is whether the Bad Spaniels trademarks are likely to cause confusion. Although VIP’s effort to parody Jack Daniel’s does not justify use of the Rogers test, it may make a difference in the standard trademark analysis. This Court remands that issue to the courts below. Pp. 17–19.
2. The Lanham Act’s exclusion from dilution liability for “[a]ny noncommerical use of a mark,” §1125(c)(3)(C), does not shield parody, criticism, or commentary when an alleged diluter uses a mark as a designation of source for its own goods. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary puts the noncommercial exclusion in conflict with the statute’s fair-use exclusion. The latter exclusion specifically covers uses “parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon” a famous mark owner, §1125(c)(3)(A)(ii), but does not apply when the use is “as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services,” §1125(c)(3)(A). Given that carve-out, parody is exempt from liability only if not used to designate source. The Ninth Circuit’s expansive view of the noncommercial use exclusion—that parody is always exempt, regardless whether it designates source—effectively nullifies Congress’s express limit on the fair-use exclusion for parody. Pp. 19–20.>>
e poi da p. 2 della sentenza:
<<Today, we reject both conclusions. The infringement issue is the more substantial. In addressing it, we do not decide whether the threshold inquiry applied in the Court of Appeals is ever warranted. We hold only that it is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods—in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark. That kind of use falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection. The dilution issue is more simply addressed. The use of a mark does not count as non commercial just because it parodies, or otherwise comments on, another’s products>>.
Da noi l’art. 21 c.p.i. non prevede l’uso lecito come parodia nè diritto di espressione.
V. ora il post 21 giugno u.s. di Lisa Ramsey, Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (Guest Blog Post). e tra i saggi più impegnati Jack Daniel’s vs. Bad Spaniels—Does a Dog Toy Get Heightened First Amendment Protection? di Jelena Laketić nel Berkeley Technology Law Journal.
V. ora l’interessante saggio dei proff. Tushnet e Lemley, 11.01.2024, “First Amendment Neglect in Supreme Court Intellectual Property Cases” .