Talk:Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles

Update
This page needs to be updated to reflect the 9th Circuit's decision at 279 F.3d 296 (2002), which affirmed the district court's opinion in part and reversed it in part. The 9th Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment as to Welles' use of Playboy's trademarks for headlines, banner ads, and metatags, but reversed and remanded as to the repeated use of "PMOY 81" on her wallpaper. The Circuit Court determined that Welles' nominative use defense failed as to the first prong of the nominative use test as to the wallpaper, finding that her repeated use of PMOY 81 on the wallpaper was "not necessary to describe Welles."

Because the Circuit Court's analysis was the "last word" on the subject as to nominative use in this case, and gives further clarification as to the nominative use test, I would recommend changing this page, listing it as a 9th Circuit opinion and explaining its holding as outlined above (which I'm sure can use even further refinement). Lawstudent10 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Better late than never. I did the above 14 years later. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 03:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)