Trademark parody is a topic that has generated interesting debates in the field of trademark law. In essence, it is not an appropriation of the distinctive function of a trademark, but the assignment of a differentiated burlesque content. However, it is imperative to emphasize that, depending on the specific case, a parody may not constitute an infringement of intellectual property rights or, on the contrary, it may undermine trademark rights when it generates confusion, denigration or undue exploitation of another’s reputation.
It should be added that Decision 486 of the Andean Community establishes that the owner of a trademark has the right to prevent unauthorized third parties from using its sign when this could generate a risk of confusion. However, when the use does not fulfill a trademark function -i.e., it is not used to identify products or services in the market-, an infringement is not configured.
Now, what is a parody? In essence, it is a humorous or satirical manifestation that refers to a trademark, of course, without the consent of its owner. In this sense, it is essential to differentiate between a legitimate parody and a denigratory use of the trademark. While the parody seeks to generate an evocation with a humorous tone, the denigratory use may affect the reputation of the owner, which could constitute an unlawful act of trademark dilution or even a case of unfair competition.
According to Rodríguez García, the parody must evoke in the consumer’s mind the parodied trademark, but must not appropriate it. Explicit suggestion is allowed, but not confusion. If the parodyer, then, does not make an effort to distinguish himself adequately, he would fall within the scope of the right of exclusivity of the holder of the intellectual property right.
An emblematic case is the group Aqua and its song Barbie Girl, which made a direct mockery of the Mattel character. In this case, the evocation is evident, but does not necessarily constitute a denigratory act. It should be noted that not every evocation can be accepted as a valid parody, since if it affects the reputation of the brand, it could result in a sanction.
In the Peruvian context, in order to determine whether a parody is contrary to the law (for being denigratory), it is essential to analyze whether the affected trademark is notorious, since the protection against trademark dilution is more developed in these cases. Therefore, the notoriety of the trademark may be a key criterion to assess whether a parody goes beyond the limits of legality.
In conclusion, trademark parody is a figure that moves on a thin line between creativity and infringement. Its legality will depend on multiple factors, including the impact on the parodied trademark and the intent of the message.
Do you need advice to protect your trademark? Contact us!
