[mrkurt]

Really? The test is whether he's diluting the value of North Face's trademark. I think a court could reasonably decide he's not. There's a long and golden history of people creating satirical products that are meant to poke fun at trademarks.

[raganwald]

One of the tests is whether he's diluting North Face's trademark. The other is whether he's damaging it. Freedom to satirize is not the same thing as freedom to create a satirical product.

There is a long history of such products, but that does not guarantee a defense.

[mrkurt]

Trademark tarnishment is a kind of dilution (the other being blurring). In this case, I think it will be hard to argue tarnishment and easier to argue blurring.

The real point I was trying to make, though, is that a court might find in his favor, and it wouldn't really be "a sad day for every entrepreneur without Chinese contacts". It would be a reasonable decision. Finding against them might also be a reasonable decision, though I'm prone to want to protect satire as much as possible. :)

[Goladus]

Yeah I think if this logo had appeared in a Simpsons Episode or on Penny-Arcade it would clearly not be infringement. The fact that he's selling clothes changes things.

[rosser]

Exactly. Parodic or otherwise, he's using his riff on TNF's trademarks for commercial purposes. That seems to be the most important detail, in terms of how suits and rulings have trended, in my (admittedly brief) digging into the topic.