Brief Fact Summary. The music group Aqua recorded a song called Barbie Girl, on an MCA Records-produced (Defendant) album. The manufacturer of the Barbie doll, Mattel, Inc. (Plaintiff), sued for trademark infringement.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The parody of a well-known product, where the product has assumed a role in society outside the protections offered under trademark law, is allowed as protected noncommercial free speech under the First Amendment.
Issue. Is the parody of a well-known product, where the product has assumed a role in society outside the protections offered under trademark law, allowed as protected noncommercial free speech under the First Amendment?
Held. (Kozniski, J.)Â Yes.Â The parody of a well-known product, where the product has assumed a role in society outside the protections offered under trademark law, is allowed as protected noncommercial free speech under the First Amendment.Â Trademarks identify a manufacturer or sponsor of a good or service.Â For example, some trademarks, such as Rolls Royce or Band-Aid, become so well known that they transcend their original identifying purpose and become a part of society’s collective vocabulary (for instance, asking for a Band-Aid when one has a cut).Â At that point, where the product has transcended its original purpose, the trademark assumes â€œa role outside the bounds of trademark law.â€Â A likelihood-of-confusion test must then be applied, balancing the trademark owner’s rights with the public’s expressive value interests.Â This test ensures that trademark rights do not encroach upon free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.Â There is no doubt that the lyrics of Barbie Girl refer to Plaintiff’s Barbie and Ken dolls, making fun of the values that the band believes the Barbie doll represents.Â Significantly, the song does not use Barbie, the doll, to make fun of another subject matter, but makes fun of Barbie herself.Â The title, Barbie Girl, does not explicitly mislead consumers as to its source because in no way does it suggest that it was produced by Mattel (Plaintiff).Â It is, therefore, outside the bounds protected by Plaintiff’s trademark.Â Plaintiff further argues that, under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), Barbie Girl dilutes Barbie in two ways: (1) it tarnishes the doll’s image because of the song’s inappropriateness for young girls, and (2) it diminishes Plaintiff’s ability to identify and distinguish its product.Â The FTDA is designed to protect the distinctiveness of a trademark.Â Under the FTDA, dilution is prevented if the use of a famous product somehow dilutes the distinctive qualify of that famous trademark.Â Such use, however, is allowable if it falls under one of three exceptions—comparative ads, news reports and commentary, or noncommercial use.Â It is undisputed by MCA (Defendant) that Barbie Girl brings to mind Barbie the doll and that consumers may think of both the song and the doll when they hear the term â€œBarbieâ€ or perhaps even only of the song.Â Clearly, the only viable exception that Barbie Girl may fall under is the â€œnon-commercial useâ€ exception.Â The Court’s test for noncommercial use is if the speech has a purpose beyond a commercial transaction.Â In this case, Barbie Girl is not â€œpurely commercial speech.â€Â While MCA (Defendant) does use Barbie the doll to sell the song, the song also parodies Barbie and humorously comments on the values that Aqua sees Barbie as representing.Â Barbie Girl has a meaning and function beyond a strictly commercial use only and is, therefore, protected noncommercial speech under the FTDA.Â Affirmed.
The song title does not explicitly mislead as to the source of the work; it does not, explicitly or otherwise, suggest that it was produced by Mattel.View Full Point of Law