A STUDY ON TRADEMARK PARODY AND UNFAIR COMPETITION SOCIO LEGAL

ANALYSIS

CHAPTER- I

1.1 INTRODUCTION

A trademark is a sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise

from those of other enterprises. Trademarks are protected by intellectual property rights. A
trademark can be any word, phrase, symbol, design, or a combination of these things that
identifies your goods or services. The word “trademark” can refer to both trademarks and service
marks. A trademark is used for goods, while a service mark is used for services. A trademark
Identifies the source of your goods or services. Provides legal protection for your brand. Helps to
guard against counterfeiting and fraud. A common misconception is that having a trademark
means you legally own a particular word or phrase and can prevent others from using it.
However, you don’t have rights to the word or phrase in general, only to how that word or phrase
is used with your specific goods or services. 1 A common misconception is believing that
choosing a trademark that merely describes your goods or services is effective. it has always
been held that a word which consists of the name or description of the goods cannot be a
trademark and cannot be granted monopoly. Even if at a specific time, the applicant is the only
producer of the goods, he cannot be granted monopoly for a word that aptly describes the goods.
If a registered trademark is infringed by a person who not being a registered proprietor or a
person using by way of permitted use in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with or
deceptively similar to the trademark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the
trademark is registered. Trademark infringement means the unapproved use of a trademark on
regarding products and benefits in a way that is going to cause confusion, difficult, about the
trader or potentially benefits.2

1
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark

2
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trademark.asp
 Engaging in trademark parody is a little like striking at a king. You had better be good at
it, because if you attempt and fail, you are in trouble. Parody is a defense to trademark
infringement. The theory behind it is that there is no likelihood of confusion because a parody
will not be taken seriously. While it must initially bring to mind the original, it must be clever
enough to be clear that it is not the original nor connected with the original, but is a parody, a
humorous take-off on the original. Parody, by definition, brings to mind the original. It then
spoofs the original in some way. Once the original is brought to mind in connection with a
product or name other than the original, one of two things is going to happen, it will either be
judged a valid parody, in which case there is no liability, or there will be trademark infringement.

In order to be successful as a defense to infringement, trademark parody must have been

handled correctly. The elements of parody are an original host work, the original host work must
be famous and/or known to the particular target audience, the creator of the derivative work, the
parody, must take only so much of the original work as necessary to bring to mind the original
host work and the derivative work which conjures up the famous host must result in a new,
original work.3

Unfair competition is conduct by a market participant which gains or seeks to gain an advantage
over its rivals through misleading, deceptive, dishonest, fraudulent, coercive or unconscionable
conduct in trade or commerce. Unfair competition is essentially a deceptive or wrongful business
practice that economically harms either consumers or business entities. At its core, unfair
competition is a business tort designed to stop any unfair practices that might be happening in the
context of a business setting. Federal and state laws are designed to protect the economic,
intellectual, and creative investments made by businesses in distinguishing themselves and their
products.4 Trademark infringement: An example of this would be using the Starbucks®
trademark on a sign or coffee cup made by a competing coffee roaster.

Trademark infringement is indeed a category that falls under the realm of unfair
competition and shares the same liability principles. The idea of unfair competition is to provide
protection to any trademark or distinguishing aspect of the business against a mock-up or a
knock-off initiated by a rival that acts as a breach of restrictions of fairness in competition. While
there are many ways in which trademarks are infringed, to take a closer look at one of the most
3
https://www.lottfischer.com/blog/trademark-parody/
4
https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-laws-and-regulations/unfair-competition-.html
prevalent kinds of it infringing uses. This is said to occur when infringement results in having a
product bearing a logo of a competitor brand or packing it up in a case that has affixed trademark
elements of the competitor on it. Yet another familiar case is when buyers fail to realize that
mere purchase of a product does not entitle them to own the brand’s trademarks. For the same
reason, using the mark of the seller on the purchased goods which originally did not have these
elements affixed on them is a violation of trademark rights.5

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

To understand the legal consequences of a trademark parody as the unfair competition and the
economic development where the competition law pushes the global trade toward the pinnacle.

1.3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Emily Adelman, Comment, Trademark Parodies: When is it OK to Laugh?, 6 J.

MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 72 (2006).

This article mentions about the trademark parodies and First Amendment right to freedom of
speech and what constitutes an unlawful appropriation, or trademark infringement. The author
makes a narrow explanation of trademark Law so that the readers understand the subject in
detail.

2. PARODY AS BRAND DOGAN & LEMLEY

This article explains the types of parodies and the accurate relationship between the values and
the defence foe brand parody This book also gives a brief explanation on the provisions of law
that enables the reader to understand the concept along with the legal background.

3. Kelly L. Baxter, Comment, Trademark Parody: How to Balance the Lanham Act with the
First Amendment, 44 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1179 (2004).
5
https://www.abounaja.com/blogs/unfair-competition-and-trademark-infringement
This article is a comprehensive document that deals with the concept of dilution of mark in the
light of Lanham Act. This article enables the readers to have an enlightened knowledge.

4. ECONOMIC ASPECT OF TRADEMARK By: TAVLEEN KAUR BHATIA PULKIT

KHURANA

The article focuses on the access to significant how trademarks affect brands. Trademarks are
key to the global economy as well as market economy This arlicle also gives the extracts of
research findings so as to enable the readers to understand the case laws in the academic context.

5. THE ROLE OF TRADEMARKS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

COMPETITIVENESS PROFESSOR WILLIAM O. HENNESSEY FRANKLIN PIERCE
LAW CENTER

This article deals with the economic development and competitiveness and The Importance of
Accurate Market Information in the Market Economy. The article also provides a model that
makes the value goodwill.

1.4 SCOPE & OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study is to know about how the trademark parody act as an unfair competition in the market
a socio legal aspects.

1.5 RESEARCH GAP

In this research, the author focuses on how the defence trademark parody destroys the goodwill
of the known marks as it tarnishes fair trade and creates ambiguity among the consumers.

1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 This research is based on doctrinal research method. The descriptive method is used in
this study. The sources used in this research are Acts, Articles, Journals and other online
available book sources collected by the researcher.

1.8 CHAPTERISATION

This project totally consists of five chapters. They include the following:

Chapter I

The Introduction chapter deals with overall need for the study, the background, the literature
review, the scope and objective of the study.

Chapter II

The second chapter deals with the trademark parody, an overview example and cases.

Chapter III

The third chapter talks about the trademark parody positive and negative aspects for business
development.

Chapter IV

The fourth chapter deals with trademark and competition, the rationale behind the competition
law.

Chapter V

The third chapter talks about the trademark and market competition.

Chapter VI

The recommendations chapter deals with concluding remarks and possible suggestions.
 CHAPTER - II

2.1 TRADEMARK PARODY, AN OVERVIEW EXAMPLE AND CASES

Parodies make fun of a thing by copying enough of it to make it recognizable while

subverting the message of the original. Most people don’t like being made fun of. Some of those
people turn to IP law in an effort to suppress those parodies. When IP owners use copyright law
to suppress parodies, the courts have generally rejected those claims. The Supreme Court in
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music6 gave parody a fairly wide exemption under the fair use doctrine,
at least where the parody didn’t substitute for the original work as it almost never will. the
Seventh Circuit held in a case involving a South Park episode that parody could defeat a
copyright claim on a motion to dismiss, because the court needed only to compare the
copyrighted work with the parody in order to resolve the fair use issue.7

Trademarks are often targets for comedic or critical expressions via a parody. Black's
Law Dictionary defines parody as a "transformative use of a well-known work for purposes of
satirizing, ridiculing, critiquing, or commenting on the original work, as opposed to merely
alluding to the original to draw attention to the later work." In order to criticize or ridicule an
original work, the parodist must copy a large number of characteristics from the original work.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that an effective parody "must convey
two simultaneous – and contradictory - messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the
original and is instead a parody." Use of a trademark as a parody necessarily brings about a
conflict of laws. On the one hand, parodies are protected under the First Amendment as a
freedom of expression.

Trademark owners can sue other people who use their trademark based on two theories:
trademark infringement and trademark dilution. Trademark infringement occurs when there is a
likelihood of consumer confusion as to a product's origin or affiliation. Trademark dilution, on
the other hand, concerns the blurring or tarnishing of the original trademark. Dilution occurs
when the defendant's mark makes the trademark owner's mark less distinctive or associated with
a lower quality. To prove trademark infringement, the trademark owner must prove there is a
likelihood of confusion as to the source of the goods or services. In parody cases, courts weigh

6
Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. at 585, 114 S.Ct. 1164
7
Parody as Brand Dogan & Lemley
the public's interest in protecting speech against the public's interest in avoiding consumer
confusion. In order to show a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, the Second Circuit,
for example, uses the "Polaroid factor" test. The test balances eight factors: (1) strength of the
plaintiff’s mark, (2) degree of similarity between the two marks, (3) proximity of the products or
services, (4) likelihood that the prior owner will expand its work into the newcomer's product or
service line, (5) evidence of actual confusion between the marks, (6) whether the defendant
adopted the mark in good faith, (7) quality of defendant's products or services, and (8)
sophistication of the consumers. However, courts are not limited to the above factors, and no one
factor is dispositive.8

2.2 PARODIES, BRAND PARODIES, AND THE LAW

a. Traditional Parodies

Parodies and their close kin satires are common in popular culture. So too are lawsuits
filed against those parodies by irate trademark owners. Many of these cases involve classic
examples of social commentary using – and targeting – brands. Courts have applied a variety of
different theories to these cases, one approach, first crafted by the Second Circuit in Rogers v.
Grimaldi, allows the use of trademarks in expressive works as long as they have some artistic
relevance to the work and do not explicitly mislead as to source. 9 Rogers itself involved the use
of “Ginger and Fred” as the title of a fictional film about two cabaret dancers whose act – and
nicknames – copied the famous dancers Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Ginger Rogers sued,
claiming that the film violated her publicity rights and falsely suggested her involvement in the
film. The court denied both claims, concluding that the First Amendment protects the use of
names in titles of expressive works “unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying
work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the
source or the content of the work.”10

In Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak,11 the court held that defendant’s antinuclear T-
shirts, featuring a funny picture and the words “Mutant of Omaha,” were likely to confuse
consumers into thinking the insurance company “Mutual of Omaha” had sponsored the shirts. In
8
trademark parodies: when is it ok to laugh? Emily Adelman
9
Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989).
10
Id. at 999.
11
836 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1987).
Anheuser-Busch v. Balducci,12 the court found illegal a fake advertisement in a humor magazine
for “Michelob Oily,” a purported new brand of beer, in an ad designed to make fun both of brand
differentiation and water pollution. In both cases, the court accepted (dubious) evidence that
consumers were likely to be confused by the parodies despite their rather obvious parodic nature.
Indeed, a closer look at the decisions that find parody infringing suggests that one of three things
is going on. First, some of these cases are misled by poor evidence of confusion. That may be a
form of confusion – specifically, confusion about what trademark law actually requires – but it is
not confusion that causes the sort of harm trademark law cares about, and it should not be
actionable. Similarly, in Mutual of Omaha, the plaintiff’s survey showed that 42% of
respondents thought the “Mutant of Omaha” shirt “called to mind” Mutual of Omaha, and that
10% thought Mutual of Omaha “went along” with the shirt.

Trademark law, however, does not and should not aim to prevent all free riding. The law
targets harms that result from confusion and from the loss of singularity of particularly famous
marks. Parodies that conjure up a trademark for humor and turn a profit in the process are
engaged in perfectly lawful behavior, absent confusion or dilution. For traditional parodies,
then, the legal rule should be simple, even if it is not always followed: Making fun of a
trademark owner by doing something other than using their mark to brand your own products
does not violate the Lanham Act.13

b. Brand parodies

A new phenomenon: lawsuits against parodies that serve as brands, titles, or taglines for
commercial products. Haute Diggity Dog sells “Chewy Vuiton” dog toys, and Louis Vuitton is
not happy about it.14 Macy’s sells a diaper bag called “Gucchi Goo,” and Gucci sues (and
wins).15 A Vermont hippie invites people to “Eat More Kale”, and Chik-Fil-A thinks he’s making
fun of their “Eat More Chickin” mark. 16 bar owner names its kitschy establishment the “Velvet
Elvis,” and gets a visit from the King’s trademark attorneys.17

12
28 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1994).
13
Parody as Brand Dogan & Lemley
14
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007).
15
Gucci Shops, Inc. v. R.H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
16
See A Defiant Dude, http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1674889308/a-defiant-dude.
17
Elvis Presley Ents. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188 (5th Cir. 1998).
 In many ways, this new form of parody resembles the old. It’s motivated by a desire to
comment or criticize, and it’s unlikely to confuse anyone about the source of the parody-branded
product. In other ways, however, parody as brand differs from parody as product because the
parody is being used as an indicator of source. Building a brand name around someone else’s
trademark looks, to some observers, like a classic case of “free riding,” with the parodist taking
advantage of the allure of the targeted brand. Trademark holders, not surprisingly, abhor the
practice and sue to prevent it. But trademark law is not – and has never been – about preventing
all forms of free riding. Trademark law, even as it has expanded to prevent dilution, has always
focused on preventing harm to the trademark holder or the public. Those who develop brands-as-
parody may well be benefiting from the appeal of a famous brand, but if their use is an effective
parody, it doesn’t cause the kind of harm that trademark law is designed to address. These
brands-as-parody, moreover, offer a valuable form of social commentary. Even more than non-
commercial forms of parody, the subversive use of a parody as brand invites critical reflection on
the role of brands in society and the extent to which we define ourselves by them.

Most parodies are unlikely to confuse consumers or to dilute the singularity of a famous
trademark. Black Bear customers who buy Charbucks coffee presumably understand that they
are not buying coffee at a Starbucks; they also seem unlikely to think that Starbucks has
authorized a new, self-parodying blend and let Black Bear sell it. Nor does Charbucks make
Starbucks less distinctive as a brand of its own; to the contrary, it only enhances Starbucks’
fame. The same goes for The Greatest Snow on Earth and Ringling Brothers, or Chewy Vuitton
dog toys and Louis Vuitton. So maybe we don’t need a defense to protect brand parodies; they
will take care of themselves. unsatisfactory, and not merely because some brand parodies are in
fact held illegal under questionable circumstances. Confusion is a fact-specific inquiry, often
heavily reliant on manipulable survey evidence and subject to an ever-expanding notion of what
it takes to confuse. If “confusion over whether the defendant needed a license” is actionable, the
virtually any brand evocation invites an expensive and unpredictable trial.

Dilution presents a different problem for brand parodies. While there is an explicit
defense for parody in the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, it expressly applies only to parodies
that use the mark “other than as a designation of source.” Brand parodies, by contrast, do not
benefit from the defense. That doesn’t mean they are dilutive, of course; the Fourth Circuit found
in Louis Vuitton that Chewy Vuiton was not. But it does mean that the parody is to be evaluated
under the normal standards of blurring or tarnishment, a set of fact-intensive standards that map
poorly to uses expressly intended to evoke a famous mark.

Brand parodies, then, don’t fit well within existing trademark infringement or dilution
law. Parodies generally don’t confuse consumers, and because they refer back to the plaintiff’s
mark directly, they will not generally blur or tarnish that mark in the way dilution law prohibits.
True parodies thus cause none of the harms that trademark law seeks to avoid. Given the
increasing prevalence of parody as brand, the time has come for a more considered analysis that
balances legitimate (or at least plausible) trademark holder concerns against the public’s interest
in this form of critical speech.18

2.3 INDIAN TRADEMARK PARODY CASES

Indian Courts have discussed the Trademarks and their use in parodies but one case that
has allowed the Indian Courts to delve into such issue is Delhi High Court, Tata Sons Ltd. v
Greenpeace International. Interim injunction not granted. The use of plaintiff’s trademark by the
defendant is not in the course of trade as the use by the defendant is not in line of business of
plaintiff. The use by the plaintiff is a denominative use with the intention of drawing viewer’s
attention towards the cause, thus the use prima facie constitutes “due cause” under Section 29(4)
of the Trademark Act and disentitle the plaintiff to an interim injunction.19

Bonnard Rule: Justice Bhat cited the 1891 precedent of Delhi HC, Bonnard v. Perryman,
1891 and explained how TATA’s allegation of defamation can only be tested in the trial and
therefore granting an interim injunction would be premature, contrary to the established
principles and against the fundamental freedom of free speech and expression.  To create the
defence of parody successfully, the parody must be clever enough, the parody must remind the
original work and shall not create the confusion among the mind of the viewers as to what is
original and what is parody. If the parody doesn’t adequately distinguishes it from the original
work then it’s an infringement which is not the case in the given circumstances.

18
Parody as Brand Dogan & Lemley
19
https://blog.ipleaders.in/parody-the-indian-trademark-regime-tata-sons-limited-v-greenpeace-international-
2011-45-ptc-275/
 In the case of Delhi High Court, Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited vs M/S R.S Sales
Corporation & Anr, It is pertinent to mention that recently the owner of a restaurant in Seoul,
South Korea, was fined 14.5 million KRW (about $125,000) for adopting the name and signature
monogram pattern of Louis Vuitton for his restaurant, to sell chicken. The owner adopted the
name "Louis Vuiton Dak" in an attempt to play a parody on Louis Vuitton, as the last two words
together read together as "tongdak", the Korean word for "whole chicken". The intention behind
adopting the name "Louis Vuiton Dak" was to poke fun at the Louis Vuitton customers, thereby
bordering on trademark parody. The defence that Louis Vuitton was not in the restaurant
business did not 'cut any ice'. When threatened with large fines, the owner changed it to
"chaLouisvui tondak", but was nonetheless fined 14.5 million KRW (about $125,000).20

2.4 PARODY UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF ‘FAIR USE’

Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act specifies that fair dealing or use of any work for
criticism and review will not amount to infringement of any original work. There is a thin line
between creative criticism and imitation and to do away with the confusion, a 3-condition test
has been laid down by Kerela High Court. Determination of quantum and value of the matter, the
purpose of recreation, and the likelihood of competition between the two works are the three
criteria that will be taken into consideration for a work to qualify for this defense. This concept
under Indian law is in consonance with the exceptions provided by the Berne Convention and
Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement. If parody sees the light of the day beyond this test, it is
defended by ‘Fair Use’. Parodies are an extension of original work and if the subsequent work is
completely different from the prior work, no copyright would be infringed. The prior work
should necessarily vary from the new in terms of creativity and expression.

The idea-expression dichotomy becomes lackluster. The defense of ‘Fair Use’ may be an
extension of the Right to Freedom of Expression but the absolute application of this doctrine is
unconvincing. Not all parodies qualify as fair use and there is a need for clear laws to deal with
the ones outside the purview of defense. A blanket statement on parodies would be jumping the
gun. The bracket of defense to parodies should be narrowed and dealt with on a case-to-case
basis.21

20
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/46001741/?formInput=trademark%20parody
21
https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/parody-fair-use-in-india-beyond-the-veil-on-the-intersection/
2.5 PARODIES FOUND LIKELY TO CAUSE CONFUSION

Courts find that some parodies cause "confusion" when the consumer may believe the
trademark owner authorized a third party to parody the protected work. In the following cases,
the courts held that the parodies were likely to cause consumer confusion.

In Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak,22" Novak sold t-shirts, caps, buttons, and mugs that
mocked Mutual of Omaha in order to protest nuclear arms." The Eighth Circuit upheld the
injunction against Novak's continued sale of goods containing the words "Mutant of Omaha" and
bearing symbols with a likeness to the plaintiff’s Indian head logo because of the likelihood of
confusion between Mutual of Omaha's trademarks and Novak's designs.

In Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications,23" the defendants published the humor

magazine Snicker and placed a fictitious advertisement for "Michelob Oily" on the back cover to
protest toxic dumping. The accompanying graphics of the advertisement included several of
Anheuser- Busch's protected trademarks such as the Michelob name and slogan. The
advertisement contained the words, "One Taste and You'll Drink It Oily," which parodied
Michelob Dry's "One Taste and You'll Drink It Dry" slogan." Upon weighing the public interest
in protecting Balducci's expression against the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion,
the Eighth Circuit held that the parody was likely to confuse consumers and that Balducci could
have conveyed its message in an alternative, less-confusing manner.

2.6 PARODIES FOUND NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE CONFUSION

In Jordache Enterprises v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd.,24 the defendant marketed its blue jeans for
larger women with a smiling pig and the word "Lardashe" on the seat of the pants to parody the
famous Jordache label. Because Lardashe used a humorous and brightly colored design while
Jordache had a more subtle label, the Tenth Circuit determined that these obvious differences
greatly outweighed any similarities between the marks.

In New York Stock Exchange, Inc. v. New York, New York Hotel, LLC,25 the defendants
developed a Las Vegas casino that used modified versions of NYSE's marks to adhere to its New

22
Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Novak, 836 F.2d 397 (8th Cir. 1987)
23
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications, 28 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 1994)
24
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1987)
25
New York Stock Exchange v. New York Hotel LLC, 293 F.3d 550 (2d Cir. 2002)
York theme. Upon a "Polaroid" analysis, the Second Circuit concluded that the "obvious pun"
would not cause any confusion among consumers."26

CHAPTER – III

3.1 TRADEMARK PARODY POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS FOR BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT

The more common association with parody is for copyrights, where a parody may be
protected under the statutory “fair use” doctrine. But there is a well-developed body of case law
for parody under the trademark laws. The more common association with parody is for
copyrights, where a parody may be protected under the statutory “fair use” doctrine. But there is
a well-developed body of case law for parody under the trademark laws. There is statutory
protection for a parody as a defense to a trademark dilution claim, but not for a trademark
infringement claim. A trademark parody must convey two simultaneous and contradictory
messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody. While a
parody must call to mind the actual product to be successful, the same success also necessarily
distinguishes the parody from the original product. To the extent it does only the former, not only
is it a poor parody, but is vulnerable to attack by the trademark owner. The second message must
not only differentiate the parody from the original, but also must communicate some articulable
element of satire, ridicule, joking, mockery or irreverent commentary. The parody relies on a
difference from the original mark, presumably a humorous difference, in order to produce the
desired result. The parody must be able to conjure up enough of the work to make the object of
its parody recognizable.

A key question for a parody is whether the speaker has created confusion by identifying
the mark as the actual source of the message as opposed to simply the target of the parody. When
parody is taken to a certain degree, it becomes clear that the trademark owner was not involved
in the manufacture or sponsorship of the defendant’s product. When a parody is clear, the
parodist is not trading on the good will of the trademark owner. Rather, his sole purpose for
using the mark is the parody itself, and for that reason, the risk of consumer confusion is at its

26
Trademark Parody: How to Balance the Lanham Act with the First Amendment Kelly L. Baxter
lowest. A very strong mark may be a more effective target of parody since its popularity and
fame is exactly the mechanism by which likelihood of confusion is avoided. While a parody may
engender some initial confusion, an effective parody will diminish the risk of consumer
confusion by conveying only enough of the original to allow the consumer to appreciate the
point of the parody. Where the unauthorized use of a trademark is for expressive purposes of
parody, allusion, criticism or commentary, the law requires a balancing of the rights of the
trademark owner against the interests of free speech. Because of First Amendment concerns,
expressive works are given more deference than a commercial product.27

3.2 ALTERATION OF THE TRADEMARK FOR PARODY

Dilution by "blurring" can occur when the use or modification of another's mark results in
the mark losing its ability to serve as a unique identifier. Dilution by "tarnishment" can occur
when the mark is "linked to products of shoddy quality, or is portrayed in an unwholesome or
unsavory context," such that "the public will associate the lack of quality or lack of prestige in
the defendant's goods with the plaintiffs unrelated goods." The risk of some dilution of the
identifying ability of a mark is generally tolerated in the public interest of maintaining
opportunities for free speech.

In Deere & Company v. MTD Products, Inc.28 the Second Circuit enjoined MTD from
altering Deere's logo to advertise its claimed product superiority. The court reasoned that
although not every alteration of a trademark will constitute dilution, the amount of dilution
protection given must correspond to the degree and nature of the alteration.

In Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Products, Inc.29 the Second Circuit found no
likelihood of dilution because Henson's use would not result in negative associations to Hormel's
mark.2 " The court came to this conclusion because unlike the situation in Deere & Co., Henson
was not seeking to modify the SPAM mark to sell more of its competitive product.227 In fact,
Henson and Hormel were not in direct competition.

3.3 THE DOCTRINE OF DILUTION OF TRADEMARKS

27
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-under-the-trademark-laws/
28
Deere & Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 1994)
29
Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions, 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996)
 The doctrine of dilution is independent and distinct. The underlying object of the doctrine
is that there is a presumption that the relevant Customers begin to associate the trademark with a
new and different source of goods and services. The doctrine of dilution of trademarks leads to a
principle in trademark law that protects a trademark from any form of disintegration. According
to the doctrine, to establish dilution of the trademark, the Plaintiff has an obligation to prove that;

 The infringer has used a mark that is precisely similar to the well-known trademark to
monetize or profit from the goodwill and image of a well-known trademark.
 The economic damage has been done by reducing the value of the well-known trademark.

3.4 THE DOCTRINE OF TRADEMARK DILUTION IN INDIA

The word dilution has not been defined in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 but Section 29(4) of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 talks about the dilution of a trademark. This section provides that if a
trademark has a reputation in India, the use of a mark identical with or similar to it, even the
goods or services which are different, constitutes infringement as such use without due cause,
would take unfair advantage of a reputed trademark or harm its distinctive character. So, this
Section postulates that a registered trademark is infringed by marks which is

 Identical or similar to a registered trademark already having a reputation in India and is

used concerning goods or services which are not identical to those for which the
trademark is registered.
 When any person takes undue advantage of an eminent mark or mark having a distinctive
character.

3.5 EXCEPTIONS TO DILUTION OF TRADEMARKS

There are certain conditions under which the infringing mark shall not be actionable as
dilution. This includes situations where the mark is used to criticise, parody, news reporting,
commentary, educational, and entertainment purposes. Such cases may fall under the ambit of
descriptive or nominative fair use and hence, cannot be considered trademark dilution. In
addition, advertising or promotional activities that allow consumers of a brand to compare goods
or services are permitted and will not be actionable as trademark dilution.
 In Caterpillar Inc. vs Mehtab Ahmed and Ors,30 Plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent
injunction against the defendant for selling various articles, including footwear, using the
identical trademarks ‘CAT’ and ‘CATERPILLAR’. The Delhi High Court decreed in favour of
the Plaintiff and stated that “So far as the doctrine of dilution is concerned, it is an independent
and distinct doctrine. The underlying object of this doctrine is that there is a presumption that the
relevant customers start associating the mark or trademark with a new and different source. It
smears or partially affects the descriptive link between the prior user’s mark and its goods. In
other words, the connection between the mark and the goods is blurred. It amounts to reducing
the force or value of the trademark and gradually tapers the commercial value of the marks slice
by slice. Such kind of dilution is not a fair practice that is expected in trade and commerce.”

In ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA,31 Plaintiff owned the ‘WELCOMEGROUP’
logo, a device depicting folded hands. In a suit for dilution of trademark, the Court held that
Plaintiff must pass a more rigorous test (compared to the deceptive similarity standard) of
proving identity or similarity. The Court further held that a “global” look is to be taken rather
than focusing only on the common elements of the mark while considering if the impugned mark
infringes an existing registered mark by dilution. Plaintiff’s mark resembles a “W”, but
“Namaste” is discernible. All the defendant’s previous marks resemble “M”. Considering the
overall marks for the logo, without classifying the similarity or dissimilarities minutely, the
Court discerns no ‘identity’ or ‘similarity’ in the overall presentation of the two. The case has
established that there may be infringement by way of dilution if the impugned mark is identical
to the well-known part, the well-known mark has a reputation in India, the impugned mark has
been used without any reason, and using the impugned mark is detrimental to the distinctive
character of the impugned mark.

In Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. Om Balajee Automobile (India) Private

Limited,32 Plaintiff is a German automobile manufacturing company that owns the mark ‘BMW’
and manufactures and sells automobiles under the mark ‘BMW’. The defendant was using a
similar mark, ‘DMW’ in their E-rickshaws. The Delhi High Court observed that the defendant
had adopted the essential characteristics of the Plaintiff’s mark and that the visual and phonetic

30
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1068613/
31
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137102954/
32
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105950199/
similarity was evident. Because of this, the defendant’s mark DMW was likely to deceive and
cause confusion. The Court passed the ad-interim injunction and restrained the defendant from
using the similar mark. This decision gives due importance to the protection of well-known and
reputed trademarks from the threat of dilution as infringement. It reinforces the concept that the
dilution test does not equate to illusory equality.

The power conferred on the well-versed trademark owner is known as the concept of
dilution. These well-known enterprises contribute to the GDP growth of our country, and it is the
responsibility of the administration to defend them against unfair competition and other
deceptive practices. Section 29(4) is a remedy that exists in addition to contravention action. The
concept of dilution is based on the authority of the courts and the conditions laid down by them.
To prevent confusion, if a trademark fails to pass court standards, it is not authorized to market
in the marketplace.33

CHAPTER – IV

4.1 TRADEMARK AND COMPETITION

The main economic function of trademarks is to facilitate reputation-building. Like other

intellectual property assets, trademarks can be the source of significant monopoly power. What
sets trademarks apart is the essential fragility of the advantage that they might confer. While
reputations take a long time to build, they can be seriously damaged by a single incident. Even
the largest firms with the strongest ‘brands’ are not immune. A few years ago, Coca-Cola took
almost a year to get over the fact that a number of European users were apparently affected by a
foreign substance found in Coke bottles. Union Carbide never recovered from the Bhopal
tragedy and Exxon clearly suffered from the Valdez pollution. This fragility has two main
consequences for competition policy. The first implication is that one should expect firms with
strong trademarks to keep a tight control over the production and sales of goods or services
bearing their name. If they did not, then the risk would be great that another party allowed to use
their trade name would ‘free ride’ on their reputation to sell shoddy (and therefore cheaper)
products at the premium price commanded by the brand ‘s reputation. Such behaviour could
easily ruin the valuable goodwill associated with the brand. Hence competition policies forcing
companies to license their trademark or preventing them from including clauses to control the
33
https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-concept-of-dilution-of-trademark/#The_doctrine_of_dilution_of_trademarks
behaviour of their licensee would ultimately be counterproductive as they would remove the firm
‘s incentive to provide consumers with high quality goods. In our opinion, competition
authorities should take a lenient view of refusal to license trademarks as well as of most
restrictive clauses found in trademark licensing agreements.34

The fragility of reputations also affects our view of the practice of umbrella branding
(also known as brand extension) whereby a company uses a trademark made famous by the sale
of one product to enter into another market. Perhaps the most famous recent example is Virgin,
which has now been used to brand products as different as airlines, train services, electricity
supply and cola drinks. Other examples abound, from the Easy/jet/car name to Dior. Such brand
extension strategies raise legitimate competition policy issues as a firm is essentially using an
advantage acquired in one market to enhance its position in another. We believe however, that
there is little room for concern – and even less room for appropriate antitrust intervention. This
position is based on two main arguments. The first one is that the ‘foreclosure’ mechanism
described in Whinston (1990) does not apply. That mechanism relies on the fact that the firm
only sells its two products as a bundle. This is not the case with umbrella branding as consumers
are still completely free to buy the firm ‘s original product without also purchasing the new good
or service that it offers under the same name. The second argument is that the firm ‘s brand name
is not separable from the quality of the product that it sells in its new market. brand name might
provide an initial advantage, it will be useless if the quality of the new product does not meet
consumer expectations.

The very fact that consumers understand that a well-known brand has ‘more at stake’
will convince them to give it the benefit of the doubt and try its product. This means that,
provided the brand-extension firm delivers on quality, a new company offering a product of
similar quality might find it hard to get a foothold into the market. Still, it is hard to see what
would constitute an effective remedy. Compulsory trademark licensing would run into the
difficulties described above: if tight controls are required to preserve quality, can we be sure that
the licensee would provide effective competition? One could of course simply prevent a
company with a dominant trademark to use it in new markets. However, as we have explained,

34
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://repository.essex.ac.uk/2851/1/dp581.pdf
such a remedy would reduce the firm ‘s incentive to provide a high-quality product both in the
new market and in the markets where it is currently dominant.35

4.2 TRADEMARK AND ECONOMY

In economics both knowledge and innovation are important for economic growth in a
country. It is generally said that technology, innovation, knowledge and protection of intellectual
property add to the fast-growing economy of several countries. Trademarks act as a beneficial
macroeconomic function since it is used to identify the origin of the products, services and
technologies. Trademarks are also very relevant when it comes to strategic roles in business
enterprises for example, it is helpful during the promotion of the product or service, its sales etc.
Trademarks reinforce consumer loyalty towards products or services which in turn increases
customer retention and is valuable for the company to generate revenue. It enables companies to
enhance profitability, respond to unfair competition, growth and retention of market share,
differentiation of products and services, introduction of new product and service lines, earn
income from licensing and franchising, support partnerships and strategic alliances, and
rationalize the financial value of the firms.

Trademark works most strongly in market economies where societies are growth
oriented, in which the consumers make conscious or subconscious choices every day for their
daily chores. Here the society encourages firms to create or expand markets to satisfy consumer
needs. In such cases trademark and branding provides an economic value. Therefore, trademarks
are used in the market economy to generate revenue, value and surplus. In modern market
economy time-saving and cost saving are two very important concepts which leads to consumers
having control over the market information. This market information is conveyed by the brand
and the brand is directly linked or connected to the trademark. While buying a product, a
consumer relies on the trademark or brand of the product which when known saves a lot of
productive time for the consumer as well as the search cost associated with it. Also, trademark
helps them to avoid any misleading or deceptive information. Trademark supports product
differentiation which helps consumers to decide which brand of similar products to buy (based
on their personal preferences and other subjective reasons). Not only this, but it also creates an
economic condition, allowing various producers of similar products to employ more workers. 36
35
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://repository.essex.ac.uk/2851/1/dp581.pdf
36
ECONOMIC ASPECT OF TRADEMARK By: Tavleen Kaur Bhatia Pulkit Khurana
4.3 TRADEMARK - A TOOL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Economists believe and explain that knowledge and innovation play a crucial role for the
economic growth of the countries. It is generally agreed that the knowledge, innovation,
technology transfer, and protection of the IP rights are the key contributing factors for the fast
economic growth of some countries (Idris, 2003). Trademarks play a valuable macroeconomic
function to identify the origin of the products, services and technologies. Trademarks look after
the accountability to the consumers.

Trademarks play an important strategic role in business enterprises for the promotion of the sales
of product and service in market. Trademarks help to strengthen the consumer loyalty towards
products and services. Consumer loyalty helps to enhance retention of customer which is
effective as the attraction of new customers for the companies’ revenue generation. Trademarks
enable firms to increase profitability, respond to unfair competition, grow and retain market
share, differentiate products and services, introduce new product and service lines, earn income
through royalties of licensing and franchising, support partnerships and strategic alliances, and
rationalize the financial value of the firms. Most of the global companies such as KFC,
McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and General Motors are using franchising business model to use their
trademark strategically all over the World. Franchising business model is very popular for the
strategic use of a trademark (Idris, 2003).

4.4 GLOBAL TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS

According to WIPO Statistics Database (2015) a total of 33.1 million trademarks were
active in 124 IP offices worldwide. WIPO statistics depict that the trade mark application and
registration is higher than the patent and other IP assets. By using the application class count,
trademark filing activity grew by 6.9% in 2014. It is recorded after the harmonizing the filing
systems of trademark application and registration across national and regional offices. In 2014,
total number of classes specified in applications reached 7.45 million which is more than 66
percent increment from the year 2004. From the year 2004 the complete class counts system has
been started (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2015).

In 2014, about 5.19 million trademark applications were filed all over the World which is
6.9 percent more than in 2013. This growth was achieved by the radical increment in trademark
filings in China. Since 2000, trademark applications have been increased doubled. The double-
digit growth of trademark application was seen in the year 2010 and 2011. However, around 6- 7
percent application growth rate has been achieved from the year 2012 to 2014. (World
Intellectual Property Organization, 2015). Figures indicate that the economic growth of the
individual country and the World economy can be the contributing factor for the trademark
application and registration.

WIPO facts and figures (2015) suggest that until the mid-1980s, the trademark filings in
the world were low and stable. However, most of the countries adopted the economic
liberalization and privatization policy since 1990. The adaptation of the market economy resulted
that the trademark filings at China, USA, India, Brazil, and South Korea has been increased.
China has received the largest trademark applications after the transformations of Chinese
economy (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2015).37

4.5 TRADEMARK APPLICATIONS BY GOODS AND SERVICES

The registration of product and service marks, the international 45 Nice Classification
system of Goods and Services was established by an agreement concluded at the Nice
Diplomatic Conference (June 15, 1957, revised at Stockholm, in 1967, and at Geneva, in 1977)
(World Intellectual Property Organization, 2015). In this classification system, the first 34
classes are allocated for goods class and the remaining 11 for the service classes. According to
WIPO (2015), nearly 65 percent trademarks were covered by the goods classes where 35 percent
has been applied from the service classes in 2014 applications all over the World (World
Intellectual Property Organization, 2015). Facts indicate the leading nature of goods classes in
application and registration of trademarks worldwide.

4.6 COMMERCIAL VERSUS NON-COMMERCIAL USE

The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 is capable of application to competitive

circumstances, the authorities are split as to whether the state anti-dilution statutes apply when
the parties are in direct competition. The theory of anti-dilution was created to protect strong
marks, from unauthorized use in markets far removed from those in which the famous mark
37
ECONOMIC ASPECT OF TRADEMARK By: Tavleen Kaur Bhatia Pulkit Khurana
appears. However, in dicta, the Tenth Circuit stated that a state dilution statute cannot be limited
to cases involving noncompeting products the Restatement of Unfair Competition takes the
position that dilution can result in competitive circumstances because some consumers may be
confused as to the source or affiliation and others may not." The former group claims a
likelihood of confusion and trademark infringement, while the latter group claims dilution.

Drawing a line between commercial and non-commercial parodies becomes especially

difficult when a mark is parodied for the dual purposes of making a parodic comment and selling
a somewhat competing product. Some courts only rarely or sparingly apply anti-dilution laws to
cases involving competitive parties. The Second Circuit even proposes that parodies in direct
competition with the trademark should receive less First Amendment protection against a
dilution claim. In Hormel Foods Corp.,"' the court found that because the defendant's product
would not be in direct competition with that of the plaintiffs, the defendant's parody would not
dilute the plaintiffs’ mark. The Second Circuit further noted that direct competition "is an
important, even if not determinative, factor."

In L.L. Bean, Inc. the First Circuit stated that the First Amendment prevents any
construction of an antidilution statute that would enjoin tarnishment in a noncommercial
context.257 However, in Anheuser-Busch, In., the Eighth Circuit held that such a sweeping
statement should be limited to the facts of L.L. Bean, Inc.

Even though the FTDA applies in a commercial context, the Act does not clearly state a
parody defense but rather states a non-commercial use defense. When the FTDA was introduced
in Congress, sponsors of the bill explained that the law "will not prohibit or threaten
noncommercial expression, such as parody, satire, editorial and other forms of expression that
are not a part of a commercial trans action." Consequently, tension still remains between the
FTDA and the First Amendment because the non-commercial exemption does not apply to
commercial speech.38 the Lanham Act is meant to protect a trademark owner's rights from
infringement and dilution, a parody also serves a purpose in the public interest of freedom of
speech. Because the Lanham Act fails to adequately address First Amendment protection for
commercial parodies and courts have interpreted the Act inconsistently.

38
Trademark Parody: How to Balance the Lanham Act with the First Amendment Kelly L. Baxter
 CHAPTER – V

5.1 TRADEMARK AND MARKET COMPETITION

The competition laws involve the formulation of policies that promote competition in the
local markets and aim to prevent anti-competitive business practices and unwanted interference
of Government. The competition law seeks to eliminate monopolization of the production
process so that new firms can enter the market. The maximization of consumer welfare and
increased production value are a few primary objectives of competition law. On the other hand,
IP Laws are monopolistic legal rights granted to owners resulting from human intellectual
creativity.

In Arun Chopra v. Kaka-Ka Dhaba Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

The famous restaurant named Kake Da Hotel has now attained it’s secured rights in its name and
trademarks against another Nashik-based food outlets namely ‘Kaka-ka Dhaba’, ‘Kaka-Ka
Restaurant ‘Kaka-Ka Garden’. The Court has observed that even though there isn’t a doubt that
the user is long and extensive. The question arises whether the word ‘Kaka’ or ‘Kake’ can be a
monopoly of any party and could be adjudicated on trial. Till now, the interim order is granted in
favour of the plaintiff and the defendants are prohibited from using words ‘Kaka-ka’ with any
new outlet during the period, it has allowed that the defendants can continue to use the names
Kaka-ka Dhaba’, ‘Kaka-Ka Restaurant’ and ‘Kaka-Ka Garden’.

Under the Competition law of IPR, the market’s unavailability can establish some
dominance in markets. Similarly, the comparison of market shares between a dominant firm and
its competitors is advantageous in determining the power and monopoly. It seems complicated to
decide on the minimum percentage of market share that could attain dominance or monopoly of
a particular firm in the market. Various judgments dominance cannot establish a minimum rate
that points to the firm’s authority.39

A manufacturer is permitted to produce spare parts for a commodity that did not originate
in his factory as long as these parts are not the intellectual property of the prime manufacturer of
the commodity in question. However, the limits within which the manufacturer explores using

39
https://enhelion.com/blogs/2021/01/26/trademark-and-competition-law/
the registered trademark elements of the original article without it being deemed as the
commitment of an infringing act is debatable.

CHAPTER – VI

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. More Specific Infringement Guidelines for Trademark Parodies

Currently, parody is not listed as one of the defenses to trademark infringement in the
Lanham Act. Parody should be listed as one of the defenses in the Act, where an obvious parody
will give the parody owner immunity from legal punishment.130 After parody is claimed as a
defense, the burden of proof should lie with the plaintiff to show that the parody is not obvious
and is likely to cause consumer confusion.

To help assess what is an obvious parody, the courts should change the likelihood of
confusion test in order specifically to address trademark parodies. The test should change
because some of the current factors have little or no meaning when applied to parodies. Applying
a modified factor test specific to parodies will help to determine whether the parody is obvious.
The next part of this section will discuss which Polaroid factors should be removed which should
be kept, and which factors, specific to parody cases, should be added.

1. Factors Removed

Courts should not look into the sophistication of consumers. Too often, judges decide that
consumers lack enough sophistication to know what they are buying when purchasing things like
T-shirts and posters. If this were true, confusion would be found in most cases. Courts should
also not look at the similarities between the parody and the trademark, but should look at the
differences. A parody must take a substantial amount of characteristics of the trademark in order
to convey the parody. Therefore, the differences will show whether the parody is obvious or will
cause confusion. The strength of the plaintiff’s mark should not be analyzed, because more often
than not, the trademark is famous, otherwise, the parody is not effective. The defendant's intent
should not be analyzed because a parodist always intends to imitate the trademark, and intends to
make an expression, not to profit off of the trademark owner's goodwill. The quality of the
products should be analyzed, but only in a tarnishment analysis because the quality of a good
that contains a parody has little to do with whether the parody is obvious.

2. Factors Kept

Courts should still consider evidence of actual confusion, but only if it is concrete
evidence. Some surveys are flawed because they do not represent a true market reality. Likewise,
courts should continue analyzing the proximity of the products after the parody is established as
commercial or not.

Factors Added

The factors that should be added to the Polaroid test should include: (1) the amount and
extent of differences between the trademark and its parody, (2) whether there is a conspicuous
disclaimer on the parody saying that it is a parody or that it is not affiliated with the owner of the
trademark, and (3) the proximity between the message expressed and the nature of the trademark.
These factors, however, should not be inclusive. Some of them have been used by courts to
determine whether First Amendment rights should outweigh trademark protection. If the court
has determined that most of the factors favor the defendant, then the parody is obvious. In that
case, there will be no likelihood of confusion, and the parody should be protected if the court
also decides that the parody does not tarnish.

B. Stricter Dilution Guidelines for Trademark Parodies

Since an obvious parody would be able to overcome the likelihood of confusion test
according to the previous section (A) above, the parody would only be vulnerable to dilution
claims. Parody should be a complete defense to dilution by blurring. As discussed, an obvious
parody must first remind its audience of the original trademark before making its comedic or
political expression. If more courts follow this anti-dilution by blurring guideline, then dilution
by tarnishment will be the only dilution theory needed to be analyzed.

Even if a parody is obvious and has defeated the likelihood of confusion test, it may still
tarnish the original trademark. As discussed in Part 11 of this comment, what constitutes
tarnishment is subjective, which has resulted in inconsistent court decisions. These
inconsistencies allow the public to enjoy some parodies, while being denied others. The public's
interest in First Amendment protection would be better served if there were stricter guidelines
when it comes to deciding tarnishment. A parody should only be found to tarnish if the parody is
so offensive and repulsive that the very thought of it makes most consumers not buy the
associated product. It is doubtful that Coca-Cola would endorse a poster alluding to illegal drug
use.

However, to associate a trademark with an illegal drug may be offensive and tarnishing.
The Coca-Cola court may have concluded this had they gone through a tarnishment analysis. It is
likely that the humor that the Garbage Pail Kids trading cards produced for children would make
those children want the Cabbage Patch Kids dolls even more than they did before seeing the
card, due to the card's popularity. A logical conclusion is that the outcomes in cases addressing
trademark issues would increase in uniformity across the varying jurisdictions if the tarnishment
test were much stricter as to what constitutes tarnishment.40

REFERENCES

JOURNALS

40
Emily Adelman, Comment, Trademark Parodies: When is it OK to Laugh?, 6 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 72
(2006).PARODY AS BRAND DOGAN & LEMLEY
 Emily Adelman, Comment, Trademark Parodies: When is it OK to Laugh?, 6 J.
MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 72 (2006).PARODY AS BRAND DOGAN &
LEMLEY
 TRADEMARK PARODY: HOW TO BALANCE THE LANHAM ACT WITH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT KELLY L. BAXTER
 ECONOMIC ASPECT OF TRADEMARK By: TAVLEEN KAUR BHATIA PULKIT
KHURANA
 THE ROLE OF TRADEMARKS IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
COMPETITIVENESS PROFESSOR WILLIAM O. HENNESSEY FRANKLIN PIERCE
LAW CENTER

WEBLIOGRAPHY

 https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/what-trademark
 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trademark.asp

 https://www.lottfischer.com/blog/trademark-parody/
 https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/business-laws-and-regulations/unfair-
competition-.html
 https://www.abounaja.com/blogs/unfair-competition-and-trademark-infringement
 http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1674889308/a-defiant-dude .
 https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/parody-fair-use-in-india-beyond-the-veil-on-the-
intersection/
 https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/08/parody-under-the-trademark-laws/
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-concept-of-dilution-of-trademark/
#The_doctrine_of_dilution_of_trademarks
 https://enhelion.com/blogs/2021/01/26/trademark-and-competition-law/