Main Article Content
AutoresDaniela Molano Lozano
The present note aims to give a better understanding of parody as an exception to the exclusive rights provided to copyright holders and trademark owners. With this purpose, the note uses the Louis Vuitton vs. MOB case as a reference.
Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag Inc., 156 F. Supp. 3d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v My Other Bag, Inc.14-CV-3419(JMF). Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., No. 16-241-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 22, 2016).
Louis Vuitton Looking to Take “My Other Bag” Case to Supreme Court. May 22, 2017.
Machado Pontes, Leonardo. Trademark and freedom of speech: A comparison between the US and the EU System in the awakening of Johan Deckmyn v. Helena Vandersteen. Geneva: ompi, 2015, p. 2.
Mandelson, Peter. Trademark trolls: Here to stay? inta Bulletin. New York: International Trademark Association, 2015, 70(21).
Mead, Frank. Cocaine, coffee mugs, sex, and bug killing floor wax: Welcome to the realm of parody and the likelihood of confusion. Thomas Jefferson Law Review. San Diego: Thomas Jefferson School of Law, 1999, 21, p. 305. issn: 1090-5278.
Polaroid Corp. v. Polarard Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).
Sakulin, Wolfgang. Trademark protection and freedom of expression: An Inquiry into the conflict between trademark rights and freedom of expression under European. Alphen aan den Rijin, The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2010, pp. 6-7.
Screen shot taken from the official website of My Other Bag. (9/10/2017).
Success Rate of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Press.
The world’s most valuable brands. Forbes Magazine. issn: 0015-6914.
Tommy Hilfiger, 221 F. Supp.2d at 417 (quoting Hormel Foods, 73 F.3d at 503).