Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications Richard Balducci Kathleen Balducci

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that ad parody violated Lanham Act, but that “by using an obvious disclaimer” defendant could have substantially lessened risk of consumer confusion
• recognizing that a movant seeking a prior restraint bears a “‘heavy burden’” and that “[c]ourts should tread cautiously when considering injunctive relief against future publication”
• noting that these factors are not a distinct test, but represent the sort of considerations which a court should analyze in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists
• emphasizing that in order “[t]o facilitate effective appellate review of a district court decision of whether to grant or modify an order of protection or confidentiality, a district court should articulate on the record findings supporting its judgment”
• interpreting Missouri anti-dilution statute, which is virtually the same as Minnesota statute, to protect against uses that tend to weaken or tarnish the unique nature of a mark
• no First Amendment right to use beer manufacturer’s marks in parody that was likely to cause confusion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).