Wal-Mart Abusing Trademark Law To Try To Shut Down Union Website
from the not-a-fan-of-free-speech-apparently dept
Over the years, we've seen a ton of lawsuits against so-called "gripes" sites: people who set up a site because they feel wronged by a company. Company lawyers will often try to bully such sites, and claim that they're a trademark violations, especially when they use a name like BigCompanySucks.com. The big companies almost always lose such lawsuits. That's because those sites are obviously not from the company itself and don't cause any sort of consumer "confusion" over who runs the sites. Earlier this year, we heard that lawyers were finally starting to recognize that suing gripes sites was not a good idea. First, you would almost certainly lose. But more importantly, you'd end up drawing a lot more attention to the gripes sites. However, it certainly looks like there are a bunch of folks who have not gotten the message. Soon after that article, we saw Goldman Sachs go after a gripes site, and the same story played out again. Lots more attention to the gripes site, and the all-powerful Goldman Sachs eventually forced to back down.And yet, it keeps happening.
The latest such story takes place up in Canada, and rather than a traditional disgruntled customer or ex-employee, the gripes site in question is from a union.Michael Scott points us to the news that Wal-Mart is trying to shut down a union website using quite a creative interpretation of trademark law, to suggest it blocks out all sorts of stuff it does not:
They want the court to order the union:Pretty much all of those requests seem like very questionable attempts to censor and silence organizing workers, rather than any legitimate attempt to protect trademarks against confusing use in commerce. And, of course, in doing so, all Wal-Mart is doing is drawing a lot more attention to these union claims... and to the fact that Wal-Mart appears to be acting like a big bully.
- to refrain from using the names Wal-Mart or Walmart as a trademark alone, or with other indicia, in any form or format
- not to use the expressions "Walmart Workers Canada" or "Union for Walmart Workers" in any form or format
- not to use the expression "Get respect. Live better." or any other expression which constitutes a play on Wal-Mart's trademarked slogan "Save money. Live better"
- not to use photos or images of WalMart employees or people purporting to be such employees
- not to use an oval, circular or semi-circular design similar to the Spark Design that includes spokes or figures in association with trademark Walmart in any form or format
- to take down the website www.walmartworkerscanada.ca
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
pity
Don't even get me started with their filtering of stuff, threatening to label things adult/not sell them/major vendor pressure.
Is anyone surprised? Walmart was well in the running for worst company in america, and narrowly was beaten by AIG from a consumer perspective (and also by bestbuy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pity
I don't agree with what walmart did here, they don't have anything to worry about with the union idiots. It took me two minutes to convince my roommate (who currently works at walmart) that unionizing would be a vary bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wal-Mart IS a big bully
Wal-Mart is a big bully. They always have been. It's how they do business. They use their leverage as the 800 pound gorilla to stomp out their competition.
Why would you expect any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In another store, the auto service workers unionized, and that was also closed (would have been very unprofitable).
Walmart is a j-o-b. It shouldn't be something that should be unionized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
UNIONS SUCK. Fuck you union people, i'll never work for another union shop again. I know how to work for a living, to badk MOST union members DON'T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's plenty of historical evidence of businesses abusing their power over workers. By the same token, strong union shops don't exactly put forth a model of efficiency. Maybe the answer lies in the middle? In my opinion, WalMart wields a huge amount of power over it's workers and suppliers. There's different ways of looking to balance that, unions are certainly one way, though i don't know if that's the best here. Having government regulation to mandate a certain level of employee rights are a great way to keep things level for businesses.
Bottom line - unions may not be the right answer for WalMart workers, but WalMart's response to their attempts to unionize cross the line in a big way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...or play on words
So, trademark should cover puns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And don't even get me started on their selective censorship regime.
End of story, avoid Wal-Mart if at all possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dilution/association
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution/association
I'm not implying you're wrong, I'm asking if that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution/association
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution/association
What, why? No, trademark is there to prevent me from passing off my goods as yours. Not to prevent me from saying your goods suck. Nor to prevent me from showing myself using your goods. Nor any of the other dumbass reasons lawyers have dreamed up to keep themselves busy.
And let's just remember this is the company that tried to trademark the smiley face :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution/association
It has nothing to do with showing "a link" to Wal-Mart, whatever "a link" means. Of course there is "a link" between the Wal-Mart Workers Union and Wal-Mart. But no one is shopping at the Union General Store thinking they are shopping at Wal-Mart because of the signs and logos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, yes. Walmart is evil. Predictably, the very first comment posted was a "Walmart is evil" diatribe. And now yours. Nothing to do with Mike's post or point, but always fun to bash big business, I guess.
Let's just all agree to stipulate that Walmart is evil in all ways and, at the same time, a provider of jobs to hundreds of thousands of workers worldwide and a supplier of low cost products to millions of consumers. It's a paradox and we can't solve it here. Okay? Done, then.
On the POINT of the post, I agree with Mike that Walmart is overstepping the intent of trademark protections. My initial read of the language Mike used in describing Walmart's actions ("bully" and "censor and silence organizing workers") led me to believe that he was taking a pro-union slant on this, which would be largely counter to everything Mike says he stands for in business visioning and the separation of moral issues from judgments on business approaches and models. However, I took the time to re-read and I found the Mike's point stuck closely around the issue of trademark over-zealousness and that I was likely reading too much into the union-ish verbiage. Interesting how the mind works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, that's correct. I don't support the effort to unionize, which I think is a mistake (though, I do think some of Wal-Mart's employment practices are reprehensible, I believe there are better ways to deal with them than to unionize). But this post was not a comment on the effort to unionize at all. Just on Wal-Mart's actions against the unionization effort, which clearly oversteps its bounds.
Related to that, it gives more ammo (and attention) to the unionization effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come up here to PA, they all do. You know what's required to get them? Healthy work ethic. You show them that you're willing to work, they will give you the rewards.
"Chrono by your statement you called your roommate and undereducated idiot who couldn't get a job anywhere else."
By my statement I called him elderly too. Get your head out of your ass.
"when Walmart comes into an area they do studies on which businesses they are going to drive out and how much they are going to have to run at a loss before they bankrupt them"
Also bullshit. You cause the stores to go bankrupt. You are the one not paying more for less. Those small companies were going away anyways. If the only competitive edge they have is price, they will fail, and they did before Walmart.
"They force out any decent paying jobs."
You mean those Mom and Pop shops that were on their way out anyways? They never payed decent wages.
"God, you people supporting Walmart should be shipped to China to work in the sweatshops Walmart gets it's products from."
I don't want to live in China, but if I had no choice, I'd take a higher than average wage there.
If, and I emphasis IF, there is an issue at Walmart with discrimination based on gender, race, or religion, it can easily be resolved by the laws already in place. There douse not need to be a union.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok, I don't live in PA, so I can only speak to my personal experiences and the reading I've done, but I just can't believe that's true. It's likely a lot more simple: they pay those wages and benefits in those areas because they HAVE to. No large business in which the employees are anonymous pays higher wages or benefits to reward ALL of its employees. Think about it, how would that work if suddenly ALL the employees decided to show a great work ethic? Would they all get those rewards? I just can't believe they would.
"You cause the stores to go bankrupt. You are the one not paying more for less. Those small companies were going away anyways. If the only competitive edge they have is price, they will fail, and they did before Walmart."
But the only competitive edge ISN'T price, it's paid government advocates, and that is simply wrong. Local businesses should have to compete on locally even ground. The goal CAN'T be to provide the best customer experience, it HAS to be a combination of the best customer and the best employee experience, otherwise you have a failure on the local level when it comes to these big box companies. There are examples of those that do it right: Home Depot circa late 90's, for example.
"There douse not need to be a union."
Unions suck, but ridiculously sized businesses with paid politicians suck more. I'll take the union over corporatocracy any day of the week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great!
Great! Good for you. Unfortunately for you, the law says otherwise. Trademark law only protects against confusion in the marketplace or things like fraud (using someone else's mark to pretend your products are theirs, etc). But feel free to play again when you have an actual understanding of the issues and want to discuss them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few words
As for Wal-Mart against unions, kudos to them. Unions are part of the problem behind America's problems and why so many jobs and other things are going out of the US, and why there's such an abundance of immigrants 'taking jobs away from Americans'.
As to the article itself. Yes, Wal-Mart did a dumb thing. Plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wal-MArt's Anti-Union Stance
The issue when dealing with Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart realizes that it can find cheap labor anywhere. So, the employee never has any recourse. Couple this with Wal-Mart's notoriously abusive managers, and you inevitably have serious issues.
So, now we're left with employees that need a job, but have no recourse to address the abuses of their time and person. I'd say their only option is unionization (disclaimer: I am 99.9% anti-union...personally, I'd like to see the auto industry fail so that we can completely overhaul it and make it more efficient..eliminating the unions is the most important part of that).
Also, you should note that, during the training course for Wal-Mart, you are pretty much outright told that even mentioning unions yourself or being reported by someone as mentioning unions is grounds for firing (I kinda wonder if this varies by state?). There is also an anti-union training video that you must watch. Also note, this is personal experience (I've worked three jobs before...) and confirmation from multiple other persons from various other wal-marts.
Anyone else run into this same experience?
I wouldn't mind Wal-Mart at all if it wasn't for the bullshit they put their own employees through. I can't stand companies that don't respect their employees at all (add other company names here adhoc...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Union
And another thing. When you have a disagreement with your employer. Go get legal council. Trust me, whatever you say is 'wrong', the company will be happy to tell you so, until your point of view is explained by a lawyer. And you thought they were nothing but useless bottom feeders. Get one working for you and it's a whole different ballgame!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Union
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I could wish the worst on anything
Why God Why!!!!!!
I only wish harm to the wal-mart family and all properties belonging to wal-mart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I could wish the worst on anything
Why God Why!!!!!!"
Because you said God and not Allah....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I could wish the worst on anything
AND...
I'd be there buying some bullets.
Thanks Walmart for not jacking your prices up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If I could wish the worst on anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If I could wish the worst on anything
What Store number did you say you managed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If I could wish the worst on anything
...stupid hippy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as I disagree with their legal decision (it not being legal), if I was in their shoes I'd do it to. All Walmart is doing is flexing their muscles. They don't stand to lose anything if the courts deny their case (which they will). It would be different if Walmart had a clean slate before this.
Welcome to America,
Go Capitalism!
die union scum...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Canader eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The union's aren't called "walmart unions", they are part of the one union group or another, not part of the company. The public service unions in Ontario are not called "Ontario Government Unions", they are the Public Service Workers of Ontarion. If Walmart employees want to form a union, they could get the "Slackass Cashiers and Lazy Stockroom Employees" or something like that. There is no rights granted to use the walmart name, logo, likeness, or other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is one Walmart shouldn't win. You state there is no right granted to use the Walmart name, logo, or likeness. The right that is granted is to Walmart for limited protection of their trademark. It is not a right for exclusive use. Therefore, one can infer the opposite that non-trademark holders have not been barred from use of the the trademark under those non-protected areas. The arguement is whether the Union's use is one of those non-protected areas. I would argue that an attempt to organize a Union of employees that work at Walmart might have a strong case for using the Walmart trademarks. Whether you agree or disagree with Union's, it's hard to communicate that your intent is to orangize Walmart employees if you can't actually refer to them or to the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the same asshole as before.
Only 3 positions, skilled or managerial have an average pay above $10. That means that everyone starts below $10.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080521161740AA5i92O
http://wakeupwalmart.com/fa cts/
Oh darn those pesky facts again for you Chrono...I guess Pennsylvania must be the one area where Walmart takes care of it's employees...or you're full of shit.
Also the Walmart HAS to provide an impact assessment on the area to get a building permit. So they regularly do these studies during, before and after a new store comes in to determine ROI. What makes Walmart evil is that it uses it's largess to undercut local business by running at a loss until until the local business can not compete.
Why don't you damned Randian Objectivists get that the only reason you are in the position to be better off is because the community decided to foster an environment to be better. Your selfish worldview takes out hospitals, charity, roads, schools and every single community based advancement. You don't want people to work harder, you want anarchy so that you can take advantage of those weaker than you. You are predators. As for the go capitalism line...America is not a free market jackass...Somalia is though. Corporate Welfare is rampant, in fact corporations as they exist today would appall the founding fathers since corporations were supposed to be limited entities for the public good...oh right your head is too far up your ass to actually know that.
Chrono don't get mad at me because you said your roommate was elderly as well, hell I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
BobinBaltimore, when I first started writing many of the posts against Walmart hadn't been up yet.
Joe...actually I agree with you. I just can't stand idiots who attack workers and essentially call them lazy, stupid and not worth it to pay well. I often come off as anti-union IRL because MA unions abuse their power, but I've worked in Non-Union states and it's FAR worse for the employee, to the point I had my wage cut because "corporate has unfortunately had to take on certain liabilities" because the CEO embezzled and the company was fined after the golden parachute was given to him to leave. I actually work for a very decent company making a good wage in a non-union position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the same asshole as before.
I do not why you attack Randians as evil. What about the principle of voluntary trade, the non-aggression principle, and the right to liberty, life, and property that they supported?
If it is anyone, socialists are predators because they take stuff away under the threat of guns or jail. They don't believe in any sort of principle, just that they hate inequality of wealth among men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's the same asshole as before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's the same asshole as before.
I was actually responding specifically to Chrono saying that Walmart paid people $10 to start, which was disingenuous. $10 would actually be a decent pay rate in many places of the country, especially in the south, but not here in MA and I am sure not in CA as that rate of pay is actually below the poverty line. I can speak from personal experience in saying my local grocery store paid 1 to 2 dollars more per hour and the mom and pop stores in my area tended to pay higher, but mom and pop stores in New England are by and large the rule not the exception whereas in Texas when I was stationed there mom and pop stores had a hard time getting a foothold in places other than antiques and bail bonds.(I lived on an Army post and then in a town with the County Jail)As of 2008 Walmart also only insures 50.2% of it's employees and 46% of children of Walmart employees are uninsured which means that you and I have to pay for them. For a company that made $10Billion in profit at the expense of our taxes going up kinda ticks me off.
Randians do not support life, liberty and property. They support selfish idealism, that seems to think that without their benevolence and superior intellect and work ethic nothing would get done. Greed is good is their mantra, but truth be told, what they really want is anarchy. With few exceptions the only way one gets to be in a position of power in a Randian society is by exploiting your good luck and the bad luck of others and then forcing those beneath you into serfdom. It completely ignores the simple fact that humans are human, private entities are out for themselves and often doing what's best for the individual infringes on other's rights to life, liberty and property. Perfect example, My neighbors sewage pipe burst. She refused to get it fixed, even though we had complained about the smell and without government intervention for the good of all(there is a public spring nearby). In a Randian world she would have done the right thing and everyone would have prospered, which is essentially Marxism, which also doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walmart is the Devil!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Idea To Try And Shut Down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]