## Facts

- MasterCard ran a long-running “Priceless” television campaign presenting a sequence of priced items followed by an intangible described as “Priceless,” ending with “There are some things money can’t buy, for everything else there’s MasterCard.”
- Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign aired a political advertisement that copied the “Priceless” structure to criticize campaign fundraising and political spending.
- The Nader ad listed items and prices associated with campaign practices, then ended with “finding out the truth: priceless” and “There are some things that money can’t buy.”
- The ad aired for roughly two weeks in August 2000 and also appeared on the campaign website.
- MasterCard sued under the Lanham Act and related state-law theories (infringement, dilution, unfair competition, misappropriation) and for copyright infringement, seeking injunctive and other relief.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the ad was political parody and protected expression.

## Issues

1. Whether the campaign advertisement’s imitation of MasterCard’s “Priceless” format and wording was likely to cause consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement under trademark and unfair-competition law.
2. Whether the campaign advertisement diluted MasterCard’s famous marks under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, or was exempt as noncommercial political speech.
3. Whether copying elements of the “Priceless” commercials infringed copyright, or instead constituted fair use as a parody under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full and dismissed all claims.
- On infringement and unfair competition, the court found no likelihood of confusion when the allegedly similar elements were viewed in the context of a plainly political campaign message.
- On dilution, the court held MasterCard failed to establish actionable dilution and that the ad was noncommercial political speech within the FTDA’s noncommercial-use exemption.
- On copyright, the court held the campaign ad was a transformative, noncommercial parody and therefore a protected fair use.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act is assessed through a multifactor analysis; context and the nature of the challenged use can defeat confusion even where a mark is strong and the formats are similar.
- Political campaign communications are generally not treated as “commercial use” for purposes of federal dilution liability; the FTDA’s noncommercial-use exemption protects political speech from dilution claims.
- Under the FTDA framework applied by the court, dilution required proof of actual dilution, not merely a likelihood.
- Fair use analysis under 17 U.S.C. § 107 considers purpose/character (including transformativeness), nature of the copyrighted work, amount taken, and market effect.
- Parody may justify taking recognizable elements necessary to “conjure up” the original, particularly where the new work serves a different purpose and does not substitute for the original in its market.

## Conclusion

The court held that a political campaign’s “Priceless”-style advertisement, used to comment on campaign practices, did not create actionable trademark confusion or dilution and was protected from copyright liability as transformative fair use parody, warranting summary judgment for defendants on all claims.


MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1046 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)