The parody primer

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

The parody primer

Parody will be the subject of what promises to be an entertaining session today. Moderator Camila Santamaría tackled some questions about it.

What is your interest in the topic of parody and why did you decide to moderate this session?

I think parody is a fascinating topic because—besides the fact that it is very interesting from an academic point of view, given its intrinsic versatility, both from a case law perspective and from a jurisdictional viewpoint—parody is dynamic and current, due to new technologies and trends… plus, it is literally very entertaining!

Why do you think it is an important issue for trademark practitioners now?

I think parody is a very important issue for trademark practitioners since parodies usually occur with protected IP rights—and frequently very well-known IP rights. The issue is that there is a very thin line between what is considered fair use and what is deemed as an infringement, and many don’t know this, even trademark practitioners. At any point the trademarks that we protect may be subject to this frequent practice, so we must know about it … besides, in our daily life we are more exposed to parodical practices than we think!

Do you think the law on this issue varies much between jurisdictions and if so is that a problem?

Unlike what happens with many aspects related to trademarks—whose standards are more or less consistent worldwide—the conception and thus, the protection of parody does vary among jurisdictions, and one of the reasons for this is based on precedent (this is even applicable in; many civil law countries). More than a problem, I see this as a challenge and an eventual wakeup call to trademark practitioners, because they need to be updated with the current legal standpoints in their jurisdiction(s) of interest, to be able to effectively protect their own or their clients’ trademarks, or on the other hand, to avoid committing trademark and/ or copyright infringements.

What will the speakers be covering during this panel? Are there any particular cases or examples you will discuss?

The speakers will mention several parody cases in different jurisdictions, evidencing the multifaceted nature of parody and its many spectrums of protection. It will be very amusing.

CM20 What is Parody? takes place from 11:45 am to 1:00 pm today.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Gift this article