Reminder: The Parody Defense to Trademark Infringement is Tricky

Home | Canna Law Blog | Reminder: The Parody Defense to Trademark Infringement is Tricky Table of Contents Toggle Parody is a tricky defense to cannabis trademark infringement, or to any infringement allegation whatsoever. For some background on this, check out our posts here, here and here. Still, people riff off established trademarks all the time, and when pursued, they often raise the parody defense. In the cannabis context, this happened most recently in a lawsuit brought by the City of New York. The Trademark Infringement Case Last week, a federal court granted the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Robert Lopez. Mr. Lopez is a clothing designer who produces merchandise under his brand name, New York Cannabis. The City had sued Lopez claiming his copycat logos infringed the City’s own trademarks and essentially amounted to counterfeiting. Lopez principally asserted parody as a defense. To back up, parody is a type of speech protected by the First Amendment. It is a “distorted imitation” of an original work for the purpose of commenting on it. In the right circumstances, parody can be asserted as a defense to trademark infringement. In this case, the Court didn’t agree. The Preliminary Injunction Test As in the Ninth Circuit, a preliminary junction can be issued in the Second Circuit if the moving party is able to show the following factors: A likelihood of success on the merits, It is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, The balance of equities tips in the moving party’s favor, and An injunction is in the public interest. Likelihood of success on the merits The Court found the City is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because it demonstrated it owns the City Trademarks. As a reminder, a certificate of registration from the USPTO is considered prima facie evidence of a trademark’s validity. The second part of this factor is to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion. Courts generally rely on the eight “Polaroid factors”: strength of the trademark; similarity of the marks; proximity of the products and their competitiveness with one another; evidence that the senior user may 'bridge the gap' by developing a product for sale in the market of the alleged infringer's product; evidence of actual consumer confusion; evidence that the imitative mark was adopted in bad faith; respective quality of the products; and sophistication of consumers in the relevant market. Here, the Court found that nearly all the factors militated towards finding a likelihood of confusion. Strength of the trademark: “all of the City Trademarks copied by Defendant have been registered for more than five years in one class or another and they are strong marks.” Similarity of the marks: remarkably, Lopez admitted his marks copy the City Trademarks. Proximity of the products and their competitiveness with one another: “Both the City and Defendant are selling the same types of apparel bearing their respective marks.” Evidence that the senior user may 'bridge the gap' by developing a product for sale in the market of the alleged infringer's product: “Here, the City asserts that although it does not sell cannabis-related products, it is likely to bridge the gap in one way or another because of the legalization of recreational marijuana. Many City agencies, which use the chunky block letter NYC registered mark in their departmental logos, such as the Department of Finance, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Department of Consumer Affairs, to name a few, will likely become involved in regulating, enforcing, taxing, and providing information to consumers regarding recreational marijuana.” Evidence of actual consumer confusion: the City asserted it had already received inquiries relating to Lopez’s marks. Evidence that the imitative mark was adopted in bad faith: “Bad faith in the adoption of the mark may be inferred in this case from Defendant’s acknowledgement of copying the City’s marks…” Respective quality of the products: “[The City] is entitled to have consumers judge the quality of its products without being confused by Defendant” competing goods and services.” Sophistication of consumers in the relevant market: “In this case, the parties are both selling the same types of apparel — including t-shirts, hoodies, and caps — to consumers who are relatively unsophisticated and undiscerning, given the relative price point and the nature of the goods.” Reminder: Parody is a tricky defense to trademark infringement The lesson here bears repeating: asserting a parody defense in a trademark case -- particularly in a commercial setting -- is challenging. There’s a difference between using another’s mark to make political and/or social commentary, versus using it to increase your sales. We’ve seen many companies attempt to tread this line and end up paying a price for it, and given this preliminary injunction, New York Cannabis is the latest. Check Out Our Cannabis Law Services Share Twitter Facebook LinkedIn E-mail Comment Fred Rocafort Fred leads Harris Sliwoski’s intellectual property practice and is the coordinator of the firm’s international team. Much of Fred’s practice consists of helping cannabis businesses protect their brands. He also works with entrepreneurs and companies entering the Web3 space, a new frontier for IP law. Prior to joining Harris Sliwoski, Fred worked overseas for more than a decade, in both government and private sector roles. Fred is a regular contributor to the award-winning China Law Blog and Canna Law Blog. Fred began his career overseas as a U.S. consular officer in Guangzhou, China, where he advocated for fairer treatment of American companies and citizens in China and for stronger intellectual property rights enforcement. After entering the private sector, Fred worked at a Shanghai law firm as a foreign legal advisor and later joined one of the oldest American law firms in China, helping foreign companies navigate the Chinese legal environment. He also led the legal team at a Hong Kong-based brand protection consultancy, spending most of his time out in the field, protecting clients against counterfeiters and fraudsters in Greater China, Southeast Asia and Latin America. In addition to his IP work, as a native Spanish speaker, Fred works closely with different Harris Sliwoski teams on Latin America and Spain matters. Fred also provides advice to cannabis industry participants and other businesses on import and export transactions. Fred is an ardent supporter of FC Barcelona—and would be even in the absence of Catalan forebears who immigrated to Puerto Rico in the mid-1800s. Harris Sliwoski Attorney Read more posts [email protected] Read More Cannabis Case Summaries, Intellectual Property/Branding, New York Related Posts September 25, 2026 DEA Enforcement in a Changing Cannabis Landscape: Rescheduling, Hemp, and What Comes Next September 17, 2026 The Supreme Court May Decide if Cannabis-Related Residency Requirements are Unconstitutional September 16, 2026 A $31.8 Million Cannabis-Related Verdict That a Federal Court Wouldn’t Enforce September 15, 2026 Jason Adelstone Moderates Federal Cannabis Policy Discussion at IgniteIt Denver September 11, 2026 Medical Marijuana in Schedule III Survives Its First Major Challenge September 10, 2026 How to Acquire a Colorado Cannabis License September 4, 2026 The Intoxicating Hemp Products Ban Was Delayed a Month. Now What? August 31, 2026 Is the Global Shift to the Right Threatening International Cannabis Reforms? August 28, 2026 Oregon Cannabis Roundup: Fall 2026 August 26, 2026 Five Bills Every California Cannabis Operator Needs to Track in 2026 August 14, 2026 California Cannabis Contracts After Rescheduling: Why Your Contracts Need a Second Look August 4, 2026 DCC License Conversions After Rescheduling: How and When to Split A/M Licenses in California August 3, 2026 The Contradictions of Cannabis Law: From the United States to International Treaties July 28, 2026 What California Operators Must Do After Rescheduling: DEA Registration, License Restructuring, and 280E July 24, 2026 Medical Marijuana Schedule III Litigation: The D.C. Circuit's First Major Test Leave a comment Cancel reply