Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?
from the depends-on-the-moron dept
Copycense points us to a story from Florida involving a high school that quite clearly copied the logo of the Dodge Ram for the school mascot:
But, honestly, the bigger issue is why the hell would Chrysler be upset about this? At worst it's getting a ton of free advertising from this school, with many students having a feeling of affinity for the logo, which could potentially increase their interest in buying a Dodge in the future. Car companies spend lots of money on sponsorship to get their logos seen by lots of people. And here's a school that's done that entirely for free... and Chrysler sends in the lawyers?
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: dodge ram, high schools, logo, ram, trademark
Companies: chrysler
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Never mind trademark infringement, I'd be concerned with copyright infringement as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also since the logos are IDENTICAL there might be some liability issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No diffrenece
Granted it's not by a competitor, but the school should have at least changed it alittle before making it the school logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No diffrenece
It might be good for the Dodge brand, with the free advertising and all. But it gives the impression that Lake Mary doesn't encourage creativity in its students and staff. School officials could have just gotten any kid to doodle another ram-like figure and we wouldn't even be reading about this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you get all up the French government agency for having a third party misuse a font on their logo, and yet you come down on the side of a school that absolutely and totally copied a well known logo, and were stupid enough to reproduce it in everything including a gym floor?
wow.
just wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's sort of hard to not notice a company logo that is on about 1 out of 20 cars sold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike didn't have a problem with Hadopi using the font. He was pointing out the irony of Hadopi, a copyright infringement task force, violating copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The very first question I asked myself when I read the article.
Either the students don't have access to art classes or someone really, really did a stupid thing.
Regardless if a moron can tell the difference or not, this purposely copied image just screams lack of student input.
Now I'd begin to question the grades the students received given they're just copies of former students passing the halls of this wonderful education institution.
I'm siding with Dodge on this one. The least the school could have done was put "Dodge" under the logo. Then maybe the lawyers wouldn't be needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Dodge" is a verb, so in order to come up with a team name, you have to change it to a noun. How about Dodgers? No one would have a problem with that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thankfully, the majority of readers here understand the subtleties of context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missd the train again
In this instance it is not like the school is selling mid and full sized trucks. There is no confusion over brands here. So while it may have been dumb to use an obviously lifted logo why should the lawyers have to get involved in a punitive way?
Instead of building bridges this incident will likely leave everyone from this town with a bad taste in their mouth. This is no way to sell cars/trucks and Dodge should know better.
Everything like this should be viewed as an opportunity. You make lemonade out of lemons and Dodge should know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missd the train again
It's the same story though: Don't worry about piracy, embrace it. Don't worry about copyright violations, embrace them. In the end, it is saying "those who steal from you or misuse your products aren't bad, you are bad because you were too stupid to give it away for free already".
There is no bridge to build here, just people too lazy to come up with their own logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
I think you completely misread what Mike was saying. I see it more of "Those who misuse your trademarks are often misguided. It is better to work with them and get good PR out of the situation, than to break out the layers and suffer bad PR"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
A stretch, but bear with me:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
No-one is debating this point except you. It is pretty funny really.
TAM - Open mouth and insert foot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
There is a key difference between what you're saying above and what Mike actually says. Mike doesn't say that illegal downloads/copyright infringers/etc are not "bad" of what they're doing is not illegal. What he does say is that the subjective issue of the morality of their actions are irrelevent to the issue of making money. You're falling into the trap of getting focused on whether a certain behavior infringes on the rights of a company, when the goal of a company should be to make money, not to protect every one of their rights. Would you rather invest in a company that did the "right" thing and squandered all of its assets chasing down "thieves" or one that embraced the current business environment and found out a way to make money in it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Missd the train again
> your products aren't bad, you are bad because you were too
> stupid to give it away for free already".
Who the hell is stealing or misusing a product here? Or are you under some deluded impression that Dodge is in the business of selling logos instead of vehicles?
No one stole a product and Mike isn't advocating that anyone do so. He's merely saying that, "Hey, if I were running that business, I wouldn't run in with my lawyers and put a stop to something that could potentially result in increased brand recognition and the sale of a few vehicles." It's like found money. Most people don't complain when that happens and it's an odd thing to find someone who does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Anti-Mike is a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know! I know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know! I know!
The High School has better aerodynamics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know! I know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I know! I know!
the sad truth is there will be less future graduations from dodge pick-ups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I know! I know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I know! I know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I know! I know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright laws are funny things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright laws are funny things...
Two companies can have the same thing trademarked and not be infringing as long as their products are different enough that they do not confuse consumers. Take "Delta" - do you confuse the faucet maker with the airline? So, this is probably a clear case of it not being trademark infringement and the school (I assume) is not making or selling automobiles and the automobile maker is not running an educational facility.
Dodge may have a copyright claim for the use of logo itself, but that is clearly a different case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright laws are funny things...
If it were 20 or more years ago, I'd agree with you without any further debate. But today, public schools have become so much more commercialized. No, a public school is not selling trucks, but I think that trademark law includes aspects of sponsorship or perceived affiliation as well. Specifically, even a moron in a hurry wouldn't think that the school was selling Dodge vehicles just because of the logo. But...might not a reasonable person assume that there was some sponsorship of the school by Dodge or some official affiliation with the company? I think it's at least possible. And in that respect, there could be some consumer confusion which falls under the umbrella of trademark law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright laws are funny things...
I think the real question is the one previously asked. Just who was the genius that thought it was a good idea to copy someone's logo and use it for their own? Hardly seems like a very smart idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright laws are funny things...
> infringed... from a legal perspective they effectively lose the
> trademark.
Not if they give the school permission to use it. If I were the boss at Dodge, I'd say to myself, "Hey, this could be great for our brand recognition in the area. Get down there with a few lawyers and tell the school they can keep using the logo but make it clear they're only doing it with our permission. Have them sign some document that acknowledges that."
That removes any infringement issue and there will be no danger they could lose the trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The school should have changed
The Dodge logo is so well known that most people would look at the high school and say "why the hell would they use the Dodge logo". It doesn't just seem like a blatant ripoff (it is), it seems lazy and insulting to the students of the school. They should have made their own. I'd bet that more than a few students are rooting on Dodge just because they think the logo sucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That being said, it seems like it would have been much smarter for Dodge to throw a small sponsorship their way, attach "Dodge" to the school logo and let them use it freely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sponsorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, the Seminole County School Board was informed by its lawyer that the case was a sure loser for the school district.
Also BTW, many trademark holders are perfectly willing to allow uses of their mark, but prudently create some groundrules so that the mark is not used in a way that may diminish/tarnish the goodwill associated with the mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now that is a smart move, and a great way to get good PR out of a bad situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the logo were used in a parody or satirical nature, or transformed into a unique piece of work, I would concede there enters a gray area ... but copying a logo and removing the shield border, that's lame on a personal level, and highly questionable from a legal one.
Though, I personally think the better response from Dodge would be to instead of calling the lawyer goons, make a large donation to the athletic of the rival school.
"You steal our logo, we'll steal your championship."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why copy?
Brand dilution. Products like Aspirin and Kerosene come to mind - products that were once trademarked names, but because they were so commonly used, lost that protective status.
Granted, I don't think there's any danger of Chrysler losing the logo's status simply because a school copied it - but, when you have a distinctive brand, you have to protect it.
What I can't understand is why didn't this school simply pick a logo from the royalty free artwork that floats around out there? I can't believe that someone didn't see this beforehand and go "Hey, that looks just like the logo on my Dodge!"
Then again, maybe they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why copy?
For dillution to be a problem people would have to be refering to trucks as Dodges or Rams. This appears to be a copyright case, where dillution wouldn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free ads for dodge
Dodge is still getting free advertising, just not the kind they really want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if, instead of the Dodge Ram logo, they decided to use the Nike swoosh(TM) logo as their school logo and put that on all their athletic uniforms?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to chrylser the school mike and anti mike- WHO CARES
no brainer if you allow this shit to continue then stuff gets murky for others thus precident says SCHOOL BAD.
end of story move along
oh and im sure a competition for a rams head ot be differant would work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pish!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missd the train again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PR problems
Without defending it, I can tell you that the corporate/lawyer motive is to prevent a PR problem of unknown proportion at an unknown time in the future. There's a low but real probability that the school and its logo will get negative PR and Dodge's brand equity will suffer by the linkage.
From silly stuff like embarrassing photos being taken on the logo to serious stuff like school shootings, Dodge's lawyers are concerned that there *could* be a downside of unknown size.
Is it a smart choice? I'm skeptical. But painting it as somehow knee-jerk and obviously stupid displays a lack of understanding of the motivations and issues. Might as well have some idea of what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Additionally, you can't just license your trademark willy-nilly. If you license a trademark without also spending a lot of effort to control and manage the way in which its used, that can also have the effect of weakening and/or destroying your trademark.
They're stuck in a legal bind where they can't just let them use it. Further, while Dodge is primarily in the motor vehicle market, they (like many large brands) aren't exclusively there, I don't think. They also sell keychains, shirts, and other merchandise, while it sounds like the school may have been doing the same thing.
Why do you ever go after someone like a school? Because you have to. I don't see it as being particularly spiteful or anything, as it doesn't sound like they're pressing for damages.
Blame the law, if you must, not the company. Though, while I think copyright should be drastically reduced or abolished entirely, trademark actually provides a lot of benefits for consumers. The sue-it-or-lose-it provisions that are causing trouble for one school here are also an important element in terms of society's ability to reclaim terms from trademark holders (a balance against society's protection from deceptive marketing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, but only in cases of likely confusion. This is not one of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I see it more as plagiarism than trying to capitalize on the company's trademark. They didn't acknowledge the source of the design, which was Dodge. Bad, bad, bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you read the article, there's no mention of a lawsuit. They sent a communication from their lawyer--ie, they sent a notice that they believe there is infringement. The school looked into it, realized they'd lose, and said, "Okay, how do we resolve this?" Then Chrysler extended them a year to wind things up smoothly, so as to achieve the result without causing too much hardship.
So basically this is a case of "Chrysler notices that it is exposed to a potentially billion-dollar trademark problem. Chrysler sends a letter to try to rectify this without suing. Chrysler is reasonable in its settlement to solve the problem. People freak out."
If Chrysler wanted, they could have done all sorts of nasty things here. They didn't. Calling them villains when their hand was forced, and they were as gentle as possible is a bit unfair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Legally, Dodge can license it to everyone under the sun with no repercussions. Think about how many licensees Apple and Microsoft have -- hundreds of thousands each, generally at zero or minimal cost. You sign an agreement, you get to use their logo in your promotional materials, websites, business cards, and so on.
Whether it's smart to do so, and whether it weakens brand perception, is an issue for business people, not lawyers. The law is silent on the matter (and rightfully so). The issue is perceived affiliation and PR upside/downside, with absolutely zero legal or trademark implications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes it's worth it to call the bluff and go to court and lose - Big corporation vs school board doesn't play well in the eyes of a underemployed public...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, PR black eye for Dodge, probably a few lost sales in already hard times. Lots of wasted money for a school. And the school board gets to look like morons and spend their time on cute legal strategies and blame-shifting PR maneuvers rather than managing their school.
That's a preferable outcome to just accepting that everyone here made mistakes and moving on? That's the world you want to live in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anything that hurts corporations is good in my book.
The school board, in this case, is hardly "moving on." They are incurring costs to the tax payer anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To answer the question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dodge is Dead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would any school want an association with anything Chrysler?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bigger problem for vendors to the school
Any printer or promotional products company who produced something with that logo on it would need permission from Dodge, or they'd be infringing and liable for damages.
This was just exceptionally poor judgement by the school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There would be negatives for Chrysler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chrysler's logo and the High School
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sue the designer
And if the design was contributed by a student or employee who didn't know better; well, you get what you pay for.
Either way, Dodge could have made this a win/win and didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why would Dodge really even care? That's just as lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what about the Plagiarism?
While plagiarism usually refers to writing and ideas, this is still an ethical violation usually frowned upon by the educational establishment. This shows how low our standards have fallen in that regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone just copied the logo out of laziness and everyone got on board with it out laziness.
Dodge has every right to get them to remove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moron Test
I understand that the Seminole Rams have nothing to do with Dodge Ram pickup trucks, but it would be very confusing to me if the Seminole Rams have the Dodge Ram logo on their jerseys.
There are lots of businesses that have "McDonalds" in their name, but they can't use the golden arches as their logo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Moron Test
They use the golden arches and they're a fast food joint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
everything isn't free, mike. if you don't like capitalism, head down to Cuba.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Huh? I'm a big supporter in capitalism, but what does this have to do with capitalism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aren't They Both Controlled by the Same Entity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they want to have a picture of a Lamb, then they could do what everyone else does and hold a competition for their students to design one. Ripping off one is just downright lazy and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No doubt. But is it against the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How much more obvious does it have to be? Would you have been more convinced if they changed them name of the school to "Dodge High School" or perhaps named all of their sports teams after dodge products?
For a supposedly smart guy, you seem to ask some pretty dumb questions at times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You really like going at this stuff half-assed, don't you? Still haven't given anything to support your argument, where-ass I can say that since the school and the auto manufacturer are not in competition that there is no confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The logo is a duplication of the dodge logo. It isn't "close", it isn't a "rendition", it's a 100% copy, just without the word "DODGE" at the bottom.
Ignore the trademark violation for a second, you have a very clear copyright violation. You don't even have to go any further. Your "will anyone confuse a school with a car company" rant is meaningless, because in copyright, it doesn't matter. The artwork is a duplicate, no modifications at all.
On the trademark side, it is easy to see where someone might imply that Dodge supports the school, or approves of the school, etc. Dodge has no interest in this school, and doesn't approve of it.
How hard is that to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is allowed by law.
Source of the above quote
The caveat being that in the U.S. one can force other not to use a trademark if they are famous by claiming dilution which basicaly gives the famous part the advantage saying that any use that can divide the attention of the public into thinking that the brand can be used for any other thing is considered dilution and could lead to terminationof a trademark.
U.S.Code - Title 15 - Chapter 22 - Subchapter III - § 1125
TRADEMARK DILUTION REVISION ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109 - 312 - Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006
According to wikipedia the Public Law 109 - 312 - Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 reversed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. (01-1015) 537 U.S. 418 (2003)
259 F.3d 464, reversed and remanded. That found that people had to prove actual harm instead of assumed harm.
So there you have a law that permit ambiguity till ones gets famous, and was passed very recently in congress and nobody saw it coming.
It doesn't matter that the trademark is in another area if there is a possibility that it will blurr the public concept of the brand the famous part can block others from using it and it doesn't need to prove dilution or anything, the Supreme Court even tried to reason but Congress passed the law anyway.
Fair and square the congress we elected screwed everyone, maybe on purpose or maybe not, but is hard to believe that after a decade lowering barriers everywhere they didn't see this coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is allowed by law.
have to prove actual dilution instead of assumed dilution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is allowed by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is allowed by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal feeling about.
If it had at least modified a bit I would feel fair use even though the law says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the designer had instead drawn the ram differently, then that would be fine. There's no problem with both the school logo and Dodge's logo being Rams. The problem here is the blatant copying that has occured.
And I don't buy the argument that this is simply free advertising for dodge. It can give the false impression that Dodge is somehow affiliated with the school, such as a sponsorship deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Trademark Confusion Again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm......
I think Chrysler/Dodge might have a good case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm......
Game, set & match...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yea the skewl screwed up,
If i were their marketeers i would make the school sign a licensing agreementthat allows, in exchange for providing the school with RAM logoed merchandise, to be able to use it in an ad caampaign something to the effect of "American Dodge, supports high school sports" and then advertise the crap out of it on TV. From dodge minivans taking kids to sports games, to RAM trucks carrying field equipment, etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dilution and affinity marketing
There might be some promotional goodwill created by use by a third party such as a high school, but that doesn't mean that Chrysler would be benefited by every use conceivably made by a third party. The high school team could put the same logo on something like sippy cups or an eco-anti-gas-guzzler or anti-hunting promotional campaign, which would send confusing and ultimately negative messages to its intended customers. And it's not commercially the best use of the mark, Chrysler can get a lot more money and goodwill via the licensing opportunities above, stadium naming rights, etc. And if it did this, how should it choose which school? If it licenses one school, other schools will ask for the same thing and any denial clearly would be a public relations nightmare that would eclipse any small localized benefit in goodwill gained by an association with community athletics.
Carol Shepherd
Arborlaw PLC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strike 2 for LMHS
1) T. Rowe Price
2) Dodge Ram
Shame on Lake Mary for getting it wrong.....again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High School STEALING Dodge mascot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chrysler hasn't always been, though in the last 30 years, since Lee Iocca bailed them out, a vehicle for a subset of the population. Anyone ignorant enough to buy a RAM pickup or a Dodge Charger, is compensating for inadequacies. Mentality and in males, a lack of physical prowess. This is a proven fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]