Court Rejects Trademark Claims Against 'Don't Care Bears' Parody Products

In a ruling issued Wednesday, Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York denied a motion for a temporary restraining order in Those Characters from Cleveland, LLC v. Schedule A Defendants, finding that the plaintiff had failed to address fair use and First Amendment claims related to products using the phrase "Don't Care Bears" (or variations) alongside marijuana imagery.

The plaintiff, which owns the Care Bears trademarks, relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, where the Court rejected a First Amendment defense for a dog toy mimicking a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. However, the judge noted a critical distinction: in Jack Daniel’s, the accused infringer used the trademark as a trademark to designate the source of its own goods. Here, the defendants did not use the Care Bears marks as marks.

The products in question do not resemble Care Bears merchandise. Some feature teddy bears with bows, others resemble the main character from Corduroy, and still others depict non-Care-Bears-looking bears that appear to have consumed excessive amounts of Cheetos. Instead of using the marks to identify the source of goods, defendants primarily use "Care" and "Bear" as part of a phrase. Thus, the judge concluded that Jack Daniel’s was inapplicable to this case.

Plaintiff’s Cited Precedents Fail to Support Claims

The plaintiff cited several cases to argue that the defendants’ use of the marks was not parody. First, Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. (2d Cir. 1989) established that merely using a trademark to promote a message is not parody. However, the judge noted this does not preclude the possibility that the defendants’ use could constitute parody. The court also referenced Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) and Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2016), aff’d (2d Cir. 2017), which require parody to target the mark in some way. While the defendants’ products may extend beyond the marks themselves, they could reasonably be seen as parodying Care Bears as marijuana-smoking characters.

The plaintiff argued, without evidence, that the defendants’ use was solely "cultural commentary." The court declined to make a definitive ruling on fair use or First Amendment defenses but found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently addressed these claims. The judge also noted the contrast between the defendants’ marijuana-themed products and the plaintiff’s "child-focused" characters, which emphasize "friendship, caring, and positivity."

Ultimately, the court ruled that the trademark infringement claims failed. The judge did not conclusively determine whether the defendants would prevail on fair use or First Amendment grounds but emphasized that the plaintiff’s arguments were insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction.