摘要
【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.
摘要译文
【摘要】孩子们错误地吃了四氢大麻酚的胶粘剂，以为他们是万圣节糖果。成年人过量吞噬了看似无辜且看起来有趣的“食物”。在不断增长的大麻相关产品的市场中，这些全面的事件是一个严重的问题。风险的很大一部分源于该领域对模仿营销的广泛接受和期望，这导致了这些危险的误解。重要的是，最近对商标法的变化限制了对模型的商业用途，从而加强了品牌所有者在保存合法言论的同时，加强了品牌所有者对有害的冒充行为。由于环境更加限制，商标法和消费者安全规则越来越一致，现在拥有大量财务资源的利益相关者越来越多，现在拥有减少危险的权力和动力。本文将上述大麻营销冲突用作框架工具，用于在重要但不受欢迎的环境中探索商标模仿的局限性：当安全涉及冲突并可以说取代言论时。现有文献通常被认为是无害且通常是非商业应用中的模仿。这种有限的审查未评估商标混乱或通过模仿稀释导致严重的健康后果的实例，尤其是对于诸如儿童之类的脆弱受众群体。此外，在文献确实解决了大麻和商标方面，它通常集中在大麻品牌问题上，而不是侵犯他人的权利。本文弥合了差距。此外，它集成了对最近最高法院案件的影响，杰克·丹尼尔（Jack Daniel's Properties，Inc。）诉V. VIP Products LLC和Vidal诉Elster的影响，这反映了对未经授权使用的语音保护的严格限制。它的结论是，在平衡语音和安全性方面，并非所有模仿都相等。随着不断发展的商标法，越来越多的利益相关者有协作以提高消费者安全的动机。
Hannah R. Weiser [1];Daniel R. Cahoy [2];. Joke or counterfeit? Balancing trademark parody and consumer safety in the edibles market[J]. American Business Law Journal, 2025,62(1): 5-21