The decision is likely to force companies to toe a more careful line when making commercial products that mimic other brands for the sake of parody, legal experts said.
The Rogers test 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," Justice Elena Kagan wrote.
Other experts said the decision leaves space for the First Amendment to apply to parody products.
"The likelihood of confusion analysis will still take the challenged product's funny message into account," Brannen said.
(This story has been refiled to change dateline to June 12)Reporting by Blake Brittain in WashingtonOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Persons:
Brown, Forman, Jack Daniel's, Rogers, infringer, Elena Kagan, Kagan, Megan Bannigan, Plimpton, Bannigan, VIP, Doug Masters, Loeb & Loeb, Masters, Alexandra Roberts, Roberts, Elizabeth Brannen, Maher, Brannen, Blake Brittain
Organizations:
U.S, Supreme Court, Constitution, VIP Products, MCA Records, Mattel, Debevoise, Loeb &, Northeastern University, Stris, Thomson
Locations:
Danish, Washington