{"title":"Joke or counterfeit? Balancing trademark parody and consumer safety in the edibles market","authors":"Hannah R. Weiser, Daniel R. Cahoy","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Children mistakenly eating tetrahydrocannabinol-laced gummies thinking they are Halloween candy. Adults overdosing on seemly innocent and fun-looking “edibles.” These all-too-common occurrences are a serious problem in the growing market for cannabis-related products. A significant part of the risk stems from the broad acceptance and expectation of parody marketing in the field, which has contributed to these dangerous misunderstandings. Importantly, recent changes to trademark law have limited the commercial use of parodies as marks, strengthening the hand of brand owners to police harmful impersonation while preserving legitimate speech. As a result of the more restrictive environment, trademark law and consumer safety rules are increasingly congruent and a greater array of stakeholders with significant financial resources now possess the power and incentive to reduce the danger. This article uses the above cannabis marketing conflict as a framing tool for exploring the limits of trademark parody in an important yet under-examined context: when safety concerns clash and arguably supersede speech. The existing literature has typically considered parody in innocuous and often noncommercial applications. Such limited review underappreciates instances when trademark confusion or dilution through parody lead to serious health consequences, particularly for vulnerable audiences such as children. Additionally, to the extent that the literature does address cannabis and trademarks, it has generally focused on cannabis branding issues as opposed to infringing the rights of others. This article bridges the gaps. Moreover, it integrates a consideration of the impact of recent Supreme Court cases, <i>Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC</i> and <i>Vidal v. Elster</i>, that reflect a tighter circumscription on speech protections for unauthorized use. It concludes with the observation that not all parodies are equal in terms of balancing speech and safety. And with evolving trademark law, there is increasingly an incentive for various stakeholders to collaborate to enhance consumer safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"62 1","pages":"5-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12254","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Children mistakenly eating tetrahydrocannabinol-laced gummies thinking they are Halloween candy. Adults overdosing on seemly innocent and fun-looking “edibles.” These all-too-common occurrences are a serious problem in the growing market for cannabis-related products. A significant part of the risk stems from the broad acceptance and expectation of parody marketing in the field, which has contributed to these dangerous misunderstandings. Importantly, recent changes to trademark law have limited the commercial use of parodies as marks, strengthening the hand of brand owners to police harmful impersonation while preserving legitimate speech. As a result of the more restrictive environment, trademark law and consumer safety rules are increasingly congruent and a greater array of stakeholders with significant financial resources now possess the power and incentive to reduce the danger. This article uses the above cannabis marketing conflict as a framing tool for exploring the limits of trademark parody in an important yet under-examined context: when safety concerns clash and arguably supersede speech. The existing literature has typically considered parody in innocuous and often noncommercial applications. Such limited review underappreciates instances when trademark confusion or dilution through parody lead to serious health consequences, particularly for vulnerable audiences such as children. Additionally, to the extent that the literature does address cannabis and trademarks, it has generally focused on cannabis branding issues as opposed to infringing the rights of others. This article bridges the gaps. Moreover, it integrates a consideration of the impact of recent Supreme Court cases, Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC and Vidal v. Elster, that reflect a tighter circumscription on speech protections for unauthorized use. It concludes with the observation that not all parodies are equal in terms of balancing speech and safety. And with evolving trademark law, there is increasingly an incentive for various stakeholders to collaborate to enhance consumer safety.
期刊介绍:
The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.