Protectmarriage. Com v. Courage Campaign

Good Law
680 F. Supp. 2d 1225·2010 WL 325571·93 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1477·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10045
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 2010CIV. S-10-132 LKK/DADCalifornia1,706 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

This is a trademark dispute. Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order enjoining defendant from using the allegedly infringing mark. For the reasons stated below, the court concludes that plaintiff is unlikely to overcome the conclusion that defendant’s use of the mark is protected under the First Amendment, in that the use is relevant to an expressive parody and the use is not explicitly misleading. Plaintiffs motion is therefore denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2008, the California Electorate passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to provide that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” California Constitution Art. I, § 7.5. Plaintiff California Renewal is a nonprofit corporation which operates “ProtectMarriage.com— Yes on 8.” Plaintiff helped place Proposition 8 on the ballot, campaigned for Proposition 8’s passage, and has since informed the public about challenges to Proposition 8 and raised funds to defend against such challenges. Perhaps most recently, plaintiff has intervened as a defendant in a federal constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 currently being tried in the Northern District of California,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.