The image of Marylin Monroe as a registered trademark.
On November 9, 2016, the Marilyn Monroe Estate sued a New York clothing company for illegally using the "Marilyn Monroe" brand, of which the former is the owner, through the use of the image of the famous actress.
The Marilyn Monroe Estate has registered with the PTO (The United States Patent & Trademark Office) the exclusive ownership of Marilyn's image, name, identity and representations, as well as the right to license these rights to third parties. set off.
The Estate of Marilyn Monroe is, therefore, the owner and licensee of the Marilyn Monroe brand, which it has been using continuously and for over thirty years on the markets. This circumstance makes the trademark indisputable, giving it a greater guarantee of protection.
For these reasons, the Monroe Estate requested that violations under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. be established. 1051 ss, the New York Statute and other applicable Common Law laws, and that the damage caused, in terms of exploitation and dilution of the trademark, as well as unfair competition, was compensated.
It matters little, therefore, that the name of Marilyn is not actually used on the market by the defendant company: the image of the most famous diva of all time, when used as a distinctive sign or trademark, falls within the "Monroe Rights" owned by 'actor.
More specifically, as can also be seen from a previous jurisprudential ruling *, it is necessary to distinguish the violation of the rights to exploit the trademark from the rights to exploit the image. Only the first case, in fact, requires the consumer to be led to believe that the use of the trademark has been authorized by the owner to be integrated.
And on this point, the Monroe Estate specifies that there has been confusion between consumers and retailers: many have in fact contacted the company believing that the defendant's products had been approved, authorized or sponsored by the company that owns the brand.
In the concrete case, therefore, while it may be very difficult, or even impossible, to prove a trademark infringement given that the trademark has not been used, Article 1125 (a) 15 U.S.C gives the plaintiff ample power to file a legitimate request.
In fact, the US federal trademark law is aimed at consumer protection. If there is actual confusion within the consumer public there should also be a risk of confusion, which is the case attributable to the provisions of article 1125 (a) U.S.C.
The existence of actual confusion contextual to the presence of a registered trademark should ensure the application of the aforementioned article, guaranteeing Monroe Estate to see its application accepted.
