To: per loin
Regardless of whether the trademark is entitled to protection under federal law,  the common law,  or a state trademark statute, the plaintiff must prove two essential elements in order to establish that there has been infringement of his mark. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that, without his consent, the defendant used the plaintiff's protected trademark or something substantially similar thereto.  Second, the plaintiff must prove that this use by the defendant created a likelihood of confusion among consumers.  Proof of actual confusion is not required.
From PROTECTED MARKS AND PROTECTED SPEECH: ESTABLISHING THE FIRST AMENDMENT BOUNDARIES IN TRADEMARK PARODY CASES (cyberlaw.harvard.edu)
posted on 06/28/2003 1:11:20 AM PDT
I suggest that the second would be a difficult case for Fox to make, unless they intend to offer proof that their consumers are inordinately stupid.
posted on 06/28/2003 1:17:37 AM PDT
by per loin
Correct an affirmative defense is required or the defendant loses.
In civil lawsuits only a preponderance of evidence is required by law and the jury does not have to find for the plantiff 100% of the jurors as is required in criminal cases.
posted on 06/28/2003 1:26:49 AM PDT
(. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson