The Artistic Use Defence in Trademark Dilution Cases – Hermès’ Legal Setback in Its Attempt to Prevent Others from Using Its Iconic Birkin Handbag

Abstract

This opinion explores what constitutes a trademark parody in an artistic context and when it crosses the line of trademark infringement in dilution cases which occur beyond the traditional trademark protection from the likelihood of confusion. This is shown by analysing the latest two decisions regarding trademark parody handed down by the German Frankfurt am Main Regional Court in a case in which Hermès has suffered a setback in its attempt to prevent a fashion label from using its iconic Birkin handbag at the Berlin fashion show in 2023. While parody is considered a protected form of speech or artistic expression, no clear-cut legal rule separates a legitimate parody from an infringing use, in particular in cases of so-called mixed expressions where the reference to the protected trademark is not closely tied to commercial use but still happens outside of a purely artistic context. Compared to the statutory copyright’s flexible fair use defence, there is simply too little case law available to draw on in trademark dilution law. The few rigid defences German courts have cobbled together in trademark cases illustrate that trademark could benefit from a clearer identification of use categories. The following analysis of these decisions aims at highlighting that urgent trademark reforms are necessary in the area of art-related fair use defences. Furthermore, the following analysis will illustrate how big corporations like Hermès can fail when attempting to use trademark rights to control the meaning not only of wealth and exclusivity but also of conspicuous consumption and the equally conspicuous display of wealth, status and power in male-dominated domains.