Harley Davidson S Case

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Law

School

NYU

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

qbhtc758

Pages

Rating

Surname 1

Student’s Name

Professor

Course

Date

Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 91 F. Supp. 2d 544 (W.D.N.Y. 2000).

Facts of the case: Legal Questions: Copyright infringement requires that the junior product

should have complete or considerable levels of similarities with a senior product which is distinct

and patented. Harley-Davidson, a motorbike manufacturer has used the word Hog in naming

their motorcycles and spare parts. It also uses a logo that has a bar and shield design with a

horizontal name Harley-Davidson and vertical words Motor Cycles in the base. Grottanelli is a

motorcycle spare parts company that repairs motorcycles with the words “The Hog Farm”.

Grotonelli also had a bar and shield logo similar to that of Harley-Davidson’s, but replacing the

word Harley-Davidson with the word “American Made” and replacing the words Motor Cycle

with “UNAUTHORIZED DEALER”. Harley-Davidson sued Grottanelli for use of the word

“Hog” and a similar logo which they termed as an infringement of copyright.

Issues

Can daily words be patented as descriptive of a particular line of products?

Does the use of a disclaimer which eliminates confusion sufficient to avoid liability for

infringement?

Holding: (No, No)

Surname 2

No, the word HOG is the word that was used to describe motorcycles way before Harley

Davidson embraced it, but even though the word HOG is currently a trademark for Harley

Davidson, the logo that Grottanelli used was a parody that aimed at associating them with

Harley-Davidson.

The use of the disclaimer cannot protect Grottanelli from copyright infringement, but given that

it was used as a parody which is protected as an extension of a creative work of science or art.

Grottanelli was allowed to continue using the logo and the word HOG given these reasons at no

cost.

Reasoning (Justice Newman)

The word HOG was a generic motorbike title for all big motorcycles. Harley-Davidson has no

right to patent a daily word and makes it a particular product through the use of copyright laws.

The logo was substantially copied, but the parody defense allowed for an extension of creativity.

Given that the intention of copying the logo was not for financial gain but to make it satirical and

entertaining, and that there are no financial losses already experienced by Harley-Davidson,

Grottanelli’s logo can be considered a fair parody and they should not be charged for its use.

Separate Opinion: None

Descending Opinion: None

Critique/Analysis:

Legally, copying a logo may be wrong only if it is intended for a commercial benefit for the

company copying. Moreover, if the company that initially used the logo experienced some

financial damages, the company copying the logo should compensate for the damages. In this

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Surname 1 Student’s Name Professor Course Date Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 91 F. Supp. 2d 544 (W.D.N.Y. 2000). Facts of the case: Legal Questions: Copyright infringement requires that the junior product should have complete or considerable levels of similarities with a senior product which is distinct and patented. Harley-Davidson, a motorbike manufacturer has used the word Hog in naming their motorcycles and spare parts. It also uses a logo that has a bar and shield design with a horizontal name Harley-Davidson and vertical words Motor Cycles in the base. Grottanelli is a motorcycle spare parts company that repairs motorcycles with the words “The Hog Farm”. Grotonelli also had a bar and shield logo similar to that of Harley-Davidson’s, but replacing the word Harley-Davidson with the word “American Made” and replacing the words Motor Cycle with “UNAUTHORIZED DEAL ...
Purchase document to see full attachment