US-CA9 · jury_instructions
9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 15.20
Expressive Works
The defendant [name]’s work, [insert name of allegedly infringing work], is an expressive work that is protected by the First Amendment.
Therefore, you may proceed to the likelihood-of-confusion test for trademark infringement only if the plaintiff [name] proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant [name]’s use of the plaintiff’s mark is explicitly misleading as to the source or content of [insert name of allegedly infringing work]. The defendant [name]’s use of the mark is explicitly misleading if it is an explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement that the [insert name of allegedly infringing work] is sponsored by or somehow associated with the plaintiff.
Provenance
- Source
- ce9.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
e24a7ea306f8a1a3d55f4eb78d3e084dbc9fa2caff47bd997bd83e1e25193cd5
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.