Dear 50 Cent: Did I Just Violate Your Trademark?
from the morons-in-a-hurry-eating-a-chalupa dept
A bunch of readers submitted the story about the ongoing lawsuit between the rapper 50 Cent and Taco Bell. Taco Bell started running an ad campaign, where they jokingly sent a public letter to 50 Cent asking him to change his name to 79 Cent, 89 Cent or 99 Cent to help publicize a Taco Bell promotional menu. 50 Cent then sued, claiming a trademark violation. This case fascinates me for a few reasons, as it raises some interesting issues. First, you can sort of see where 50 Cent is coming from -- as Taco Bell is using his brand in commerce without his permission -- but I'd argue that it's pretty clear that 50 Cent isn't involved and hasn't endorsed the product (and, yes, even a "moron in a hurry" would hopefully recognize that). Since it's just an "open letter" to the rapper, rather than anything involving him, it should be clear that he's not necessarily involved. If any commercial website (say, a blog) wrote an "open letter" to a celebrity, would that be a violation of publicity rights or trademark? Unlikely. So why would it be so in this case? Even more interesting, of course, is that the lawsuit only served to draw a lot more attention to this whole thing, meaning that Taco Bell is probably pretty pleased about it. Of course, if I were Taco Bell, I might think about adding a single item to the menu that actually costs 50 cents... After all, you can't protect a price.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 50 cent, trademark, use in commerce
Companies: taco bell
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
New menu item
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you talking to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are you talking to me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taco Bell is profiting (or trying to) of his name (trademark).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mmm... Taco Bell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mmm... Taco Bell
around here Taco Bell closes at 11 p.m. They still have the "4th meal" decals, but they close before midnight...
Also, 79,89,99 items are marked up 10 cents, so it's 79, 89, 1.09. They still have the 89 and 99 decals on the windows, but (of course) no franchise-provided 1.09 decal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree with Johnny Canada, I think this fails the moron in a hurry test.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Celebrities have "special" rights to their name/image/reputation
In 50 Cent's case, it's an even more obvious violation, since 50 Cent is a trademark instead of his actual name.
Taco Bell is clearly in the wrong here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the contrary
What a crock. Certainly the judge will throw this out of his court and award attorney fees to the restaurant. Mr. Fifty Cents voluntarily assumed that name knowing that it is used routinely throughout the country as a PRICE, and that it is reasonable to expect that some folks will confuse HIM with the price because he was stupid enough to pick that name.
By the way, did the restaurant use his image? If they did, then they might lose.
Thank God the Rev. Billy Sunday never sued all those competing churches who plastered his last name all over their signs and billboards promoting their services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two things
2) You wrote "After all, you can't protect a price." Of course you know that EVERYTHING is now protected by IP law, including prices. See CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999). http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/197_F3d_1256.htm
Eric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two things
While I disagree with the court's decision in the case you linked, it did not establish that prices could be copyrighted. The Red Book's prices are essentially opinions expressed as a dollar figure, not facts. So while the provided case may apply to other pricing guides, it would not apply to a restaurant's menu.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fifty Cent Taco Tuesdays
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At least Fifty has removed any doubt that he might be endorsing Taco Bell. If there was ever any chance for a future endorsement deal its gone now.
Congratulations on limiting your earning potential.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'd turn the tables
then taco bell should just pay up cuz fiddy needs mo bling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Bob"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Bob"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Bob"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll settle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]