A commercial that uses parody to criticize a commercial of a competitor does not constitute copyright infringement

A coffee brand manufacturer employed a double of an actor identified with the competing brand and in the commercial itself such actor is presented leaving a shop designed as the shops of the competitor and it is specifically written that such actor is not the presentor of the competitor.
The Supreme Court held that the commercials do not constitute a copyright infringement. An owner of copyrights has the exclusive right to utilize such rights. Here, the competitor's name does not appear in the commercial because the logo was blurred, a store design is not a registered trademark or a trademark recognized by the general public and use of a double of a competitor's presentor (especially where the commercial clearly notes that the actor is a double and thus it is not misleading) in order to create an association with the competitor, is not an infringement of rights. There was no misleading description of the service provided by the competitor or any concern that the general public would be misled to think that the commercial relates to the competitor, the commercial was produced in reaction to the competitor's commercial, it is not an imitation thereof but rather a parody about it and thus it is not an infringement of copyright.