“Comments from the Second Circuit panel of judges during oral argument appear to suggest the court’s desire to reach a decision that carefully balances protecting artistic expression against trading on the goodwill associated with another’s marks to market one’s own goods.”
“第二巡回审判庭的法官们在口头辩论中的评论似乎表明，法院希望作出的判决能够在保护艺术表达与利用他人商标的相关商誉来推销自己的商品之间取得谨慎的平衡"。
On October 23, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit heard oral argument in Hermès Int’l et al. v. Rothschild, an appeal brought by Rothschild that challenges the jury’s February 2023 verdict and certain related legal rulings made by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This case will undoubtedly impact the ability of third parties to use a brand’s trademark in artistic endeavors or the ability of brands to restrict the use of their trademarks by third parties, or both. Based on comments from the panel of judges during the October 23, 2024, oral argument, it appears that there are more questions than answers.
2024 年 10 月 23 日，美国第二巡回上诉法院听取了爱马仕国际公司等诉罗斯柴尔德公司案的口头辩论，罗斯柴尔德公司提起上诉，对陪审团 2023 年 2 月的裁决以及美国纽约南区地方法院做出的某些相关法律裁决提出质疑。此案无疑将影响第三方在艺术创作中使用品牌商标的能力，或品牌限制第三方使用其商标的能力，或两者兼而有之。根据法官小组在 2024 年 10 月 23 日口头辩论中的评论，似乎问题多于答案。
A Brief History
简要介绍
In early 2022, Hermès sued Sonny Estival (aka Mason Rothschild), the creator of NFT-linked digital images referred to as “MetaBirkins” that portrayed fur-covered versions of Hermès’ famous Birkin bag. The lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The jury found that the MetaBirkins creator was liable for trademark infringement and dilution, and cybersquatting, and that he is was not shielded by First Amendment protections that apply to artistic and non?explicitly?misleading works because his MetaBirkins created a likelihood of consumer confusion and were intentionally designed to mislead the public into believing that Hermès was associated with MetaBirkins. The jury awarded Hermès approximately $133,000 in damages. Rothschild appealed the jury’s verdict and certain legal rulings made by the District Court to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
2022 年初，爱马仕起诉 Sonny Estival（又名 Mason Rothschild），后者是 NFT 链接数字图像 “MetaBirkins ”的创作者，这些数字图像描绘了爱马仕著名的 Birkin 包的皮草覆盖版本。诉讼是在美国纽约南区地方法院提起的。陪审团认定，MetaBirkins 的创作者应承担商标侵权、淡化和抢注的责任，而且他没有受到适用于艺术作品和非明确误导作品的第一修正案的保护，因为他的 MetaBirkins 造成了消费者混淆的可能性，并故意误导公众相信爱马仕与 MetaBirkins 有关联。陪审团裁定爱马仕赔偿约 13.3 万美元。罗斯柴尔德就陪审团的裁决和地区法院的某些法律裁定向第二巡回上诉法院提起上诉。
Rothschild’s Arguments on Appeal
罗斯柴尔德的上诉论点
Rothschild argues that the District Court Judge Rakoff erred in his application of the Second Circuit’s Rogers v. Grimaldi test (the “Rogers” test). Specifically, Rothschild claims Judge Rakoff improperly focused on Rothschild’s intent to profit from Hermès’ goodwill and refused to dismiss the case based on Hermès allegation that Rothschild “entirely intended to associate the ‘MetaBirkins’ mark with the popularity and goodwill of Hermès’ Birkin mark, rather than intending an artistic association.” Rothschild also claims that “there has never been any plausible allegation, let alone evidence, that Rothschild’s use of the MetaBirkins title was explicitly misleading.” Under the Rogers test, an unauthorized use of a trademark owner’s mark is protected under the First Amendment if the unauthorized use is: (1) an artistic expression, and (2) does not explicitly mislead consumers.
Rothschild further argues that based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox, trademark law does not apply to intangible goods like NFTs and, as a result, Hermès’ claims of trademark infringement are not legally viable.
罗斯柴尔德辩称，地区法院法官拉科夫在适用第二巡回法院罗杰斯诉格里马尔迪案的检验标准（“罗杰斯 ”检验标准）时犯了错误。具体而言，罗斯柴尔德声称，拉科夫法官将重点放在罗斯柴尔德利用爱马仕商誉牟利的意图上是不恰当的，并拒绝根据爱马仕的指控驳回此案，即罗斯柴尔德 “完全是为了将‘MetaBirkins’商标与爱马仕的Birkin商标的知名度和商誉联系起来，而不是为了艺术上的联系”。罗斯柴尔德公司还声称，“从来没有任何可信的指控，更不用说证据表明罗斯柴尔德公司使用 MetaBirkins 名称明显具有误导性”。根据罗杰斯测试法，如果未经授权使用商标所有人的商标是：
(1) 一种艺术表达；
(2) 没有明确误导消费者，那么这种未经授权的使用将受到第一修正案的保护。
罗斯柴尔德公司进一步辩称，根据美国最高法院在 Dastar 诉二十世纪福克斯公司一案中的判决，商标法不适用于像 NFT 这样的无形商品，因此，爱马仕公司的商标侵权主张在法律上不成立。
Hermès’ Counter Arguments
爱马仕的反驳
Hermès’ counters that Rothschild’s use of the Birkin mark was “explicitly misleading” and, as a result, falls outside the protections provided by Rogers.
Hermès further argues that Rothschild’s use of the “MetaBirkins” name as the brand for his NFTs is an example of source identification. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products LLC, which clarified that the Rogers test does not apply when trademarks are used for source identification, Hermès further argues that Rogers does not apply to Rothschild’s MetaBirkin because Rothschild’s use of the Birkin mark “was not simply part of an artistic work but instead functioned as a brand.”
爱马仕反驳说，罗斯柴尔德使用Birkin商标是 “明显的误导”，因此不属于罗杰斯提供的保护范围。
爱马仕进一步辩称，罗斯柴尔德使用 “MetaBirkins ”名称作为其NFT的品牌是来源识别的一个例子。爱马仕援引美国最高法院在 “Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products LLC ”一案中的裁决，该裁决明确指出，当商标被用于来源识别时，罗杰斯检验标准并不适用，爱马仕进一步辩称，罗杰斯并不适用于罗斯柴尔德的 “MetaBirkin”，因为罗斯柴尔德对 “Birkin ”商标的使用 “并不仅仅是艺术作品的一部分，而是起到了品牌的作用”。
The Second Circuit’s Comments
第二巡回法院的评论
Comments from the Second Circuit panel of judges during oral argument appear to suggest the court’s desire to reach a decision that carefully balances protecting artistic expression against trading on the goodwill associated with another’s marks to market one’s own goods. In this context, the panel made numerous comments.
For example, on one hand, one judge asked, “[w]asn’t there significant evidence that Rothschild was trying to take advantage of Hermès’ goodwill”? Another judge, on the other hand, queried, “say there is a painting that exalts the Rolls Royce, and its title is ‘Rolls Royce,’ how does that work survive a trademark infringement challenge? Would the artist be trading on the good will of the [Rolls Royce] mark?” If so, “there could be no circumstance in which an artist makes a work of art whose basis is to comment on some famous thing in commerce that is trademarked.” In another example, the panel asked, “[w]hat does it mean to use [another’s] mark in a non-source identifying way?”
Remaining comments from the panel focused on what legal standards should apply in the present and future cases. For example, is an alleged infringer’s “intent” relevant to a Rogers test analysis? At least one judge said it does not apply. And, relatedly, does the “”explicitly misleading” prong of the Rogers test require a Polaroid factor analysis? At least one member of the panel further commented that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniels “doesn’t say what to do if Rogers does not apply.”
In sum, the Second Circuit’s decision in Hermès Int’l et al. v. Rothschild is likely to have far reaching effects on the extent to which third parties can use the trademarks of luxury and similarly well-known brands as a source of inspiration in their own “creative” endeavors.
第二巡回法院法官小组在口头辩论中的评论似乎表明，法院希望在保护艺术表达与利用他人商标的相关商誉推销自己的商品之间做出谨慎平衡的裁决。在这方面，合议庭发表了一些意见。
例如，一方面，一位法官问道 “难道没有重要证据表明罗斯柴尔德试图利用爱马仕的商誉吗？另一位法官则质疑道："如果有一幅赞美劳斯莱斯的画作，标题为‘劳斯莱斯’，那么该作品如何经受住商标侵权的挑战？艺术家是否在利用‘劳斯莱斯’商标的善意进行交易？如果是这样的话，“就不可能出现这样一种情况，即艺术家在评论某些商业中的知名商标物的基础上创作了一件艺术作品”。在另一个例子中，专家组问道："以非来源识别的方式使用‘他人’商标意味着什么？
专家组的其他意见集中在当前和未来的案件中应适用何种法律标准。例如，被控侵权人的 “意图 ”是否与罗杰斯测试分析相关？至少有一位法官说不适用。与此相关的是，罗杰斯检验标准中的 “明显误导 ”部分是否需要进行宝丽来因素分析？至少有一位专家组成员进一步评论说，最高法院在 Jack Daniels 案中的判决 “没有说明如果罗杰斯不适用该怎么办”。
总之，第二巡回法院在 “爱马仕国际等诉罗斯柴尔德 ”一案中的判决很可能会对第三方在自己的 “创意 ”活动中使用奢侈品及类似知名品牌商标作为灵感来源的程度产生深远影响。