Australian Patent Lawyers Claim Patenting Genes Is Necessary For Biomedical Research

Company Trademarks The Pirate Bay Logo

from the missing-the-point dept

Tue, Nov 17th 2009 4:01pm — Mike Masnick

Quite a few people have pointed to the story about a Swedish company that has trademarked The Pirate Bay logo, and plans to sell USB keys with the logo included. The company claims that this is fine because The Pirate Bay had not registered the trademark itself. In the meantime, some folks associated with The Pirate Bay are saying they're going to try to overturn the ruling.

I don't know how Swedish trademark law works, but at least in the US there is a concept of a "common law trademark," which is supposed to prevent others from registering a mark on a brand that someone else is using -- even if they haven't registered it. It would seem like quite a silly trademark law if the Swedish trademark law doesn't include anything like that.

As for those who think it's ironic or even hypocritical that The Pirate Bay guys are somewhat bothered by this, you need to understand a few things. First, they clearly state that they have no problem with anyone doing anything else with The Pirate Bay logo. So, if this company just wanted to sell those USB keys by itself, it could do so. The issue they have is with this company "locking up" the trademark so others can't use it. That seems entirely in support with what they stand for.

Separately, it's worth pointing out (yet again, because some people still get confused by this) that trademarks are wholly different beasts than copyrights or patents. Trademarks are not about protectionism, but about preventing consumer confusion over who actually made or offers a specific product. It's a very different concept.

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: logo, trademark
Companies: the pirate bay

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:22pm

Out of all three of the pillars of intellectual property (why isn't it taxed like real property?) trademark is the one pillar I am least worried about in the overall scheme.

Patents? I think there's a mess of problems but at least they don't last for centuries.

Copyright? Thank goodness artistic human expression is locked down for centuries. And that corporations can own artistic human expression for 90 years. Otherwise nobody would create anything.

And everyone has, what is essentially, a copying super-machine in their pockets.

"Just because it's okay to marry a negro doesn't mean you should!"

Seriously, good luck in the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bigot Buster, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:36pm
  
  Re:
  "Just because it's okay to marry a negro doesn't mean you should!"
  
  Um, what is this bigoted comment supposed to mean?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Laws preventing two people from marrying are about as useful as laws preventing people from sharing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I probably should have clarified. My apologies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In my defense, I have been trolling/shilling/commenting here for about 3 days straight.
      
      Break time!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Why?, 17 Nov 2009 @ 11:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why clarify? You used quotes around it. With the context, it was perfectly understandable.
      
      And yes, I'm black, thank you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:45pm
  
  Re:
  Oh look- Grandpa finally got on the internet!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He still doesn't get it!
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVwXWkbe-Lg
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vyvyan, 18 Nov 2009 @ 2:35am
  
  Re:
  "Just because it's okay to marry a negro doesn't mean you should!"
  
  No connection to what you were saying before that. I wonder from where have you pulled this one?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Nov 2009 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    I heard it from a copyright maximalist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cynix, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:29pm

"Just because it's okay to marry a negro doesn't mean you should!"

Sorry, was that a racist comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:38pm
  
  Re:
  That statement itself was based off of racism, yes. I imagine a racists saying it.
  
  There were laws that prevented two people from marrying. Of course, back in the day it was based on skin color but now it's based on sexuality.
  
  My point is: just because something is against the law (copyright infringement, segregation) doesn't make that action automatically wrong.
  
  Who know? Just as we look back at laws dealing with segregation and shake our collective heads, we might do the same with copyright infringement laws. They are seriously asinine and deserve reform.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 17 Nov 2009 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Except... that quote isn't saying "just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong" - it's saying "just because something is allowed doesn't make it right."
    
    Pretty different concepts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 5:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Just because you can fileshare (everyone can) doesn't mean you should!" - Copyright Maximalist
      
      Fine, I think copyright maximalists are like racists. It makes it easier to disagree with them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheStupidOne, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:41pm

Confusion
If trademarks are supposed to prevent confusion in the marketplace ... wouldn't someone other than the pirate bay using that logo be suggesting affiliation with the pirate bay and thus be confusing if no affiliation actually exists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re: Confusion
  That's my other beef. All these laws are confusing! And some of them are really old.
  
  But we shouldn't work towards reform? No, that would be a horrible thing to do.
  
  I know, let's make more laws and have secret treaties and kick people off of the internet. That will solve everything!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 5:02pm

Obviously the recording industry is going sue the USB key makers since they run The Pirate Bay right? I mean they registered the trademark on a brand we all know.

USB Keys = sneaker net

See how they are trying to not be tracked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2009 @ 5:31pm

No why would they care? They can just pirate their own logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel, 17 Nov 2009 @ 6:39pm

I believe it is in order, protect your trademark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tor (profile), 17 Nov 2009 @ 10:02pm

The company will unregister it
The company has after communication with Peter Sunde (a.k.a. brokep) decided to unregister the trademark and said that all they wanted to achieve was to get an ok to use the image (although all the free advertising was probably part of the plan too ;)).

Source: Swedish Radio news (google translated)

There's another interesting part of the story: when the registration became public many people mailed to the patent and registration office with questions about it. When Fredrik Neij - one of the Pirate Bay guys - mailed a question to them he got a reply within two minutes. But not from the Patent and Registration office but instead from Swedish Radio - citing his original mail in full. Now it could be that correspondence like this with authorities is openly available under Swedish transparency laws, but in that case one has to make a formal request in order to access it. I have never heard of normal correspondence being automatically forwarded to journalists like this.

"I don't know how Swedish trademark law works, but at least in the US there is a concept of a "common law trademark," which is supposed to prevent others from registering a mark on a brand that someone else is using -- even if they haven't registered it. It would seem like quite a silly trademark law if the Swedish trademark law doesn't include anything like that."

Swedish trademark law indeed has something similar. Although I don't have any detailed knowledge of it I doubt that "common law trademarks" would cover more areas than the ones established by the common usage however. The trademark application in this case covered just one so called trademark class. I don't think it would have limited the possibility to continue using the image as a logo for the file-sharing site (but I'm no expert on legal matters).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thetrademarkattorney (profile), 18 Nov 2009 @ 12:58am

Lots of Info
Well, I was under the impression Pirate Bay shut shop and that too for illegal activities. Well, if someone wants to go ahead and have a legal biz with that name in ALMOST the same class of goods or services, all the best to them, for wouldnt the consumers be confused?btw, great post and even better comments, found quite a lot of mind chow here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina Paley (profile), 18 Nov 2009 @ 6:57am

there should be share-alike for trademark
There should be share-alike registrations for trademarks. That would be cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mechwarrior, 18 Nov 2009 @ 7:05am

So what're they gonna do, sue Pirate Bay for trademark infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]