(Un)Official Word on Puma

Actual Malice: "I would think that Puma would have a claim again the creator of the ads (but whose identity they may never uncover). I don't think that the "First Amendment parody defense" is as clear. In order to be protected, the "parody" must comment upon or criticize the borrowed material. If Puma is known for pushing the envelope with sexually suggestive ads, then perhaps. Or if the fake ads had been for Pony, which recently announced that [Jenna Jameson] would be its new spokesmodel, the argument would be much stronger. However, "First Amendment parody defense" is not a magic phrase that makes your infringement worries disappear.

Also, as a practical matter I'm not sure it's worth the expense given the recent flak over Google's enforcement efforts (at least in the online community). It seems that people get downright ornery when you try to enforce your IP rights and any attempt at enforcement would harm your public relations.

With respect to the people that have re-posted the ads, these postings seem mainly to be done in conjunction with discussion over whether the ads are real or not, which to me seems a lot closer to fair use."*

Update: Official Statement by Peter Kim, Puma Interactive Marketing and here's his unofficial statement as relayed to Felix Salmon:

"[T]he fake ads constituted trademark infringement, defamation, and possibly libel, and that "definitely legal action is in the works". He told me that "it's a clear-cut case that this is illegal content," and that if MemeFirst didn't take the images down, it would face legal action itself."

More: The Trademark Blog replies (indirectly) to Puma, who is clearly looking to get litigious or get more legs on this story (depending on who you ask):

"As to the threats that are being bandied about to those folks reproducing the ad on their sites, let's go over some (U.S.) ground rules. If you're not using the trademark in commerce, you're not infringing and you're not diluting. If you re-publish a false statement with the indication that it is false (and in fact publish it because its falsity is news), then you are not committing libel or trade disparagement. Now, if you're the person who created the ad, and then disseminated it indicating that it was an authentic Puma ad, that's a different analysis."

The ads can be found here, for now.