Rogers Test Impact Highlighted in F1 and Netflix Trademark Cases
Courts reinforced Rogers test's role in dismissing trademark claims in key cases.
Why it matters: Legal advisors can use these rulings to guide clients in the creative sector, ensuring trademark claims don't impede artistic expression.
- Haas Automation v. Steiner dismissed claims on F1 logos, reaffirming artistic relevance.
- Ninth Circuit upheld Rogers test in Hara v. Netflix, post-Jack Daniel's decision.
- Rogers test assesses if trademark use is misleading or artistically irrelevant.
- Legal professionals need the Rogers test insights for creative industry disputes.
Recent court decisions have underscored the Rogers test's significant role in balancing trademark laws with freedom of expression, particularly in creative contexts. Originating from Rogers v. Grimaldi, this test examines if a trademark's use is explicitly misleading or artistically insignificant, thereby guarding expressive works.
In Haas Automation v. Steiner (Dec 2025), a court ruled that images of Haas F1 car logos, central to the book "Surviving to Drive," were protected under the Rogers test as they held artistic relevance. This outcome illustrates the test's importance in ensuring trademarks don't overreach into creative works.
The Ninth Circuit's July 2025 ruling in Hara v. Netflix reinforced the Rogers test's usage beyond misleading commercial contexts, even after the widely-discussed Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products decision. This led to the dismissal of a "false endorsement" claim, emphasizing the test's adaptability.
For legal advisors, these rulings provide crucial insights into leveraging the Rogers test when navigating potential trademark disputes in creative and tech industries. By applying this standard, legal professionals can better defend clients against trademark claims that could otherwise suppress artistic expression.
What's next: Continued monitoring of how courts apply the Rogers test in future trademark disputes is essential.