Parody and Trademarks

It’s an oldie, but a goodie. Our discussions throughout this term reminded me of comedian Nathan Fielder’s decade-old stunt exemplifying the use of parody in trademarks. In it, Fielder created a coffee shop called “Dumb Starbucks Coffee”, serving its customers “Dumb Frappuccinos” with extra shots of “Dumb Espresso”. As Fielder alleges in the embedded video, Starbucks’ trademark and logo could be used by meeting the “minimum requirements of parody” under U.S. trademark and copyright law. In other words, by adding “Dumb” as a prefix to everything in the store. The strength of this defence was never tested though, given the shop was shut down for operating without a valid public health permit before any legal action could commence.

However, this situation still makes me wonder if Canada, like the U.S., should also explicitly adopt fair dealing for trademarks. On one hand, being able to parody trademarks may not prove very useful, and its adoption may lead to more consumer confusion than any good. But on the other hand, why should parody (a staple of freedom of expression) not be expressly protected when it comes to trademarks? I’m interested in hearing your thoughts in the comments below!