Company Trademarks The Pirate Bay Logo
from the missing-the-point dept
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.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 ]
Re:
Um, what is this bigoted comment supposed to mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Break time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And yes, I'm black, thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVwXWkbe-Lg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No connection to what you were saying before that. I wonder from where have you pulled this one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, was that a racist comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 ]
Re: Re:
Pretty different concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fine, I think copyright maximalists are like racists. It makes it easier to disagree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusion
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 ]
USB Keys = sneaker net
See how they are trying to not be tracked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The company will unregister it
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.
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 ]
Lots of Info
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there should be share-alike for trademark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]