This page looks plain and unstyled because you're using a non-standard compliant browser. To see it in its best form, please upgrade to a browser that supports web standards. It's free and painless.
Laura E. Ray, Educational Programming Librarian, laura.ray@law.csuohio.edu | December 07, 2009 - 17:56
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Penthouse Media Group Inc. (PMG) on the grounds that "the First Amendment can provide a complete defense to Lanham Act claims involving artistic works," and PMG's use of "Route 66" in a film title was "protected free speech under the First Amendment" and constituted "fair use." Plaintiff Roxbury Entertainment had argued PMG was infringing their trademark and in violation of the Lanham Act.
Roxbury Entertainment obtained rights to the "Route 66" TV programs in 2001, including rights to the "Route 66" trademark for entertainment productions and sales. In 2008, PMG began selling a Penthouse: Route 66 DVD, with the story line of a cross-country traveling couple appearing to be on the run. The "Penthouse" portion of the DVD's packaging is in smaller font size than "Route 66." The remainder of the DVD's packaging depicts 2 topless women standing on a roadmap, with a California "66" highway sign and mountain range in the background, as well as sexually explicit photographs and a "hardcore adult entertainment" label. The Court found PMG's use of "Route 66" to be "relevant to the underlying work" and there was no risk of PMG "duping consumers into thinking they are buying a product sponsored by, or in any way affiliated with, Plaintiff or the 1960s television series in which it owns rights."
| « | December 2009 | » | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||