Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n - 95 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 1996)

Rule:

A parody receives full protection under U.S. Const. amend. I if it provides social commentary on public figures who are involved in a significant commercial enterprise. While not core political speech, this type of commentary on an important social institution constitutes protected expression.

Facts:

Plaintiff, Cardtoons, L.C., brought the present action to obtain a declaratory judgment that its parody trading cards featuring active major league baseball players did not infringe on the publicity rights of the members of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA). The district court held that the trading cards constituted expression protected by the First Amendment and therefore read a parody exception into Oklahoma's statutory right of publicity. MLBPA appealed, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment. MLBPA further argued that the plaintiff did not have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards.

Issue:

1. Did the district court lack jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment? 
2. Did the plaintiff have a First Amendment right to market its trading cards? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that federal jurisdiction existed due to potential suit under § 43(a)(1) of Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(a)(1). The court also found that a case or controversy existed since plaintiff had finished production, defendants threatened to sue, and defendants had sued others like plaintiff in the past. The court further held that plaintiff’s cards constituted protected speech under U.S. Const. amend. I because they provided social commentary on public figures involved in significant commercial enterprise, and balance between plaintiff's free speech and defendants' publicity rights favored plaintiff, as defendants would not suffer any financial injury.