Question: JORDACHE ENTERPRISES, INC. v. HOGG WYLD, LTD., 625 F. SUPP. 48 (D. N.M. 1985), AFF'D, 828 F.2D 1482 (10TH CIR. 1987)
FACTS Jordache Enterprises, Inc., manufactured and licensed the manufacture of a line of apparel, including designer blue jeans, under the mark Jordache. In 1984, Jordache sold 20 million pairs of Jordache jeans, with gross sales of $500 million and advertising expenses of $30 million. Hogg Wyld, Ltd. marketed large-size designer blue jeans under the mark Lardashe. In 1984 (its first year of operation), Hogg Wyld sold approximately 1,300 pairs of jeans and did not advertise. The Jordache mark consisted of the word "Jordache" in block letters superimposed over a drawing of a horse's head. The Lardashe mark consisted of the name "Lardashe" stitched in script lettering on the rear pocket of the jeans, an inverted-heart-shaped embroidered design on the pocket, and an embroidered appliqué of a pig's head and feet sewn onto the fabric so that the pig appeared to be peering out of the top of the pocket.
Jordache sued Hogg Wyld for trademark infringement. DECISION Hogg Wyld argued that it had chosen the "Lardashe" name as a more polite variant of a childhood nickname used by one of its founders, and that it had not intended any similarity with the Jordache mark. The court did not believe Hogg Wyld's testimony on this issue, noting that other names considered and rejected by Hogg Wyld included "Calvin Swine," "Sow-soon," and "Horse's ashe." However, the court also found that Hogg Wyld's "intent was to employ a name that, to some extent parodied or played upon the established trademark Jordache." Parodies are permitted under trademark law where the junior mark is used only for humorous purposes and not to mislead or confuse the consumer. "That the defendant's joke mark calls the plaintiff's mark to mind is necessary for there to be a humorous parody at all .... But the requirement of trademark law is that a likely source of confusion of source, sponsorship or affiliation be proven, which is not the same things as a ‘right' not to be made fun of." Thus, the court found, because the Lardashe mark was an obvious parody of the Jordache mark, and because the two marks created "a very different concept image, and ‘feel'," the Lardashe mark did not confuse consumers as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship, and so did not infringe.