Disclaimer

Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!

Disclaimers

We're sure that everyone has noticed the hard-to-read disclaimers at the bottom of televisions automobile commercials. They say such silly things as, "Professional Driver on Closed Course" and "Do not attempt", etc. Some driver is careening through what appears to be New York City at a high rate of speed and the automobile manufacturer feels compelled to warn the viewer, "Do Not Attempt"? Prescription medicine commercials bore the viewer with lengthy warnings about side effects. A washer-dryer commercial for LG has a woman destroying her washer-dryer by pushing it off a high place with the warning, "Do not attempt".
However, a corporate lawyer representing the owner of a trademark will tell you that a disclaimer is not effective and will not prevent the likelihood of confusion. So, you ask, what are we missing? Not a thing.
There are a number of federal court cases that address disclaimers and not one of them actual has ruled that disclaimers are ineffective. So, you ask, why do corporate lawyers representing trademark owners claim that they are not effective? Because they can. There's no law prohibiting them from lying to you. Or to the court for that matter. And that's what they do. A lie is a statement told in such a way as to deceive. It can be a true statement told in such a way as to create a false impression. Corporate lawyers love to lie.
In our Analysis of Charles Of The Ritz Group, we point out what corporate lawyers do to pervert the actual ruling. The passage:
A growing body of academic literature has concluded that disclaimers which employ brief negator words such as "no" or "not," are generally ineffective.
It's often presented in this manner, out of context. What the court was doing was discussing the facts for both sides, not making a determination. The Court referenced arguments, pro and con, concerning disclaimers. The same court these bottom-feeders mis-quote actually required better disclaimers than those being used. In its Oppsition To Motion For Summary Judgment, Major League Baseball stated:
"Predictably, Tabberone points to its textual disclaimers to excuse its prominent unauthorized trademark use of MLB Clubs' trademarks. (See Tabberone Sum J. Mem. ¶ 28, 31). Disclaimers are notoriously ineffective to dispel confusion. Charles of the Ritz Group, Ltd. v. Quality King. Distrib., Inc., 832 F.2d 1317, 1324 (2d Cir. 1997) (referring to a "growing body of academic literature that disclaimers…are generally ineffective")."
In Precious Moments v La Infantil, Precious Moments sued to stop La Infantil from making and selling bedding from copyrighted, licensed Precious Moments fabric. Court ruled bedding items manufactured with lawfully acquired, authentic fabric with copyrighted design were not infringing derivative works. The Court did require La Infantil to attach a notice with a disclaimer to the bedding.
In Home Box Office v Showtime, 832 F.2d 1311 (2d. Cir. 1987):

Although we agree with the district court's application of the likelihood of confusion standard to Showtime's promotional materials, our view of the proper role of disclaimers in trademark infringement cases is somewhat different. Although we have found disclaimers to be adequate in certain cases, each case must be judged by considering the circumstances of the relevant business and its consumers. We have found the use of disclaimers to be an adequate remedy when they are sufficient to avoid substantially the risk of consumer confusion. See, e.g., Springs Mills, Inc. v. Ultracashmere House, Ltd., 724 F.2d 352, 355 (2d Cir.1983); Berlitz Schools of Languages v. Everest House, 619 F.2d 211, 215 (2d Cir.1980). In many circumstances a disclaimer can avoid the problem of objectionable infringement by significantly reducing or eliminating consumer confusion by making clear the source of a product. See Soltex Polymer Corporation v. Fortex Industries, Inc., 832 F.2d 1325 (2d Cir. 1987) (minimal to moderate amount of consumer confusion found by district court could be cured effectively through the use of a disclaimer).

Some disclaimer court cases:

Home Box Office v Showtime, 832 F.2d 1311 (2d. Cir. 1987).
Charles Of The Ritz Group Ltd v Quality King Distributors, Inc 832 F.2d 1317, Decided Nov. 3, 1987
Soltex Polymer Corporation v. Fortex Industries, Inc., 832 F.2d 1325 (2nd Cir, 1987)

Precious Moments v La Infantil, 1997, 1st Cir, D. Puerto Rico
Westchester vs Polo, the 5th Circuit Appeals Court decision from 2000 in full.
Some disclaimer articles:

Westchester vs Polo, excerpts concerning disclaimers from the 5th Circuit Appeals Court decision.
Westchester vs Polo article from LSU about the decision.