L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc.
811 F.2d 26 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The noncommercial use of a trademark as part of a parody constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment and cannot be enjoined under a state anti-dilution statute. Applying such a statute to prohibit noncommercial, expressive parody amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
Facts:
- L.L. Bean, Inc. is a well-known mail-order retailer that publishes a popular catalog for its products.
- Drake Publishers, Inc. owns High Society, a monthly magazine featuring adult erotic entertainment.
- The October 1984 issue of High Society contained a two-page article titled “L.L. Beam’s Back-To-School-Sex-Catalog,” which was labeled in the table of contents as 'humor' and 'parody.'
- The article featured a facsimile of L.L. Bean's trademark and displayed pictures of nude models in sexually explicit positions.
- These models were depicted using fictitious 'products' that were described in a crudely humorous fashion.
- Drake Publishers, Inc. did not use L.L. Bean's mark to identify or promote any actual goods or services to consumers.
Procedural Posture:
- L.L. Bean, Inc. sued Drake Publishers, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, alleging claims including trademark dilution under state law.
- The district court denied L.L. Bean's request for a temporary restraining order.
- Both parties subsequently filed for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of L.L. Bean on its trademark dilution claim, finding that the parody tarnished Bean's mark.
- The district court issued an injunction prohibiting Drake Publishers from further publishing or distributing the parody.
- Drake Publishers, Inc., as appellant, appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with L.L. Bean, Inc. as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injunction, issued under a state trademark anti-dilution statute, that prohibits the publication of a noncommercial parody of a trademark violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Bownes, Circuit Judge.
Yes, such an injunction violates the First Amendment. The court held that applying Maine's anti-dilution statute to enjoin a noncommercial parody is an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech. The court distinguished between commercial speech, where a trademark is used to sell competing or dissimilar products, and noncommercial, expressive speech like parody. It reasoned that anti-dilution laws are intended to prevent the unauthorized commercial appropriation of a mark's goodwill, not to stifle commentary or criticism. Allowing a trademark owner to suppress an offensive parody would effectively grant them the power to censor protected expression and shield themselves from criticism, a result the First Amendment does not permit.
Dissenting - Campbell, Chief Judge
The court should not decide this constitutional question at this time. The dissent argued that the court was acting prematurely by ruling on the First Amendment issue. Before reaching the constitutional question, the court should have first determined whether the Maine anti-dilution statute even applies to this type of pornographic parody under state law. The proper judicial course, in keeping with the principle of constitutional avoidance, would have been to certify this question of state law to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. If the state court found the statute did not cover the parody, the constitutional issue would become moot.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant First Amendment limitation on the scope of state trademark anti-dilution statutes. It creates a crucial distinction between commercial use of a trademark, which can be regulated, and noncommercial expressive use, which is highly protected. The ruling prevents trademark law from being used as a tool for censorship against parody, satire, and other forms of commentary, even if they are offensive or 'tarnish' a brand's wholesome image. This precedent strengthens the position of artists and critics against corporations seeking to control all uses of their marks, ensuring that trademarks remain part of the public vocabulary for discussion and criticism.
Unlock the full brief for L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc.