Trademark law and political expression intersect in complex ways, as demonstrated by a recent case involving a Michigan congressional candidate and a century-old brand. Shelby Nicole Campbell, a Democratic candidate for Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, faced a trademark infringement lawsuit from The Campbell’s Company after using imagery resembling the iconic soup can design in her 2026 campaign materials. The case, resolved via a stipulated order in November 2025, underscores the growing challenges for political figures seeking to use commercial trademarks without creating consumer confusion.
The dispute centered on whether Campbell’s use of the Campbell’s brand’s distinctive red-and-white packaging and logo constituted infringement under the Lanham Act. The company argued that her campaign materials created a false impression of endorsement, as social media users repeatedly asked if the brand supported her candidacy. While Campbell asserted her use was protected under First Amendment rights and parody defenses, the court’s stipulated order effectively barred her from leveraging these arguments.
The case highlights a critical tension in trademark law: the balance between free speech and brand protection. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC narrowed parody protections, emphasizing that trademarks used as source identifiers - like Campbell’s iconic can design - are subject to traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis. This ruling limits the scope of parody defenses in cases where the mark’s primary function is to identify a source, not to mock it.
For businesses, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of trademark confusability in political contexts. Even if a campaign’s intent is non-commercial, the visual similarity to a well-known brand can trigger legal action. Companies like Campbell’s have a clear interest in protecting their trade dress, and the law increasingly favors their position when confusion arises.
The stipulated order also illustrates the importance of proactive trademark monitoring. Campaigns that incorporate elements of existing trademarks, even in non-commercial ways, must be scrutinized for potential infringement. The line between acceptable use and actionable appropriation is thin, particularly when the design’s association with a brand could mislead consumers.
For political candidates, the lesson is clear: while personal identity and political speech are protected, they do not absolve the use of commercial trademarks that create marketplace confusion. The case reinforces that trademark law applies broadly, and the burden of proof lies with those seeking to assert defenses like parody or free speech.
IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, helping businesses stay ahead of potential issues. By tracking 50+ countries and key databases, the service ensures brands are protected from rogue registrations that could lead to costly disputes. The legal landscape is shifting toward clarity and consumer protection, and IP Defender’s tools are designed to keep brands secure in this evolving environment.
Ultimately, this case reflects a broader trend in trademark litigation: the law is increasingly prioritizing clarity and consumer protection over subjective claims of artistic or political freedom. Businesses must remain vigilant in monitoring potential infringements, while political actors must navigate the legal boundaries of using commercial imagery in their campaigns. The outcome underscores that in trademark disputes, the focus remains on whether a mark’s use creates confusion, not on the intent behind its application.