[2] The Second Circuit affirmed, with Judge Jon O. Newman writing for the panel that "suppressing an artistically relevant though ambiguous[ly] title[d] film" on trademark grounds would "unduly restrict expression.

"[3] The court held that "In sum, we hold that section 43(a) of the Lanham Act does not bar a minimally relevant use of a celebrity's name in the title of an artistic work where the title does not explicitly denote authorship, sponsorship, or endorsement by the celebrity or explicitly mislead as to content.

[5] The "Rogers test", so-called, has since been cited by numerous courts, adopting its reasoning to protect the use of trademarks in works of creative expression.

[6] However, the Supreme Court limited the test's applicability in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, holding unanimously that the test does not apply in cases where the alleged infringer uses the mark as a source designation for their own goods.

[7] Furthermore, a concurrence from Justice Gorsuch criticized the Rogers test for having an unclear legal basis.