Breast Cancer Charity Bullying Other Charities Over Trademark
from the for-the-cure dept
A few months back we had a few submissions over some claims by the "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" operation was being a trademark bully, and threatening other charities that were using the color pink. SGK is the big name in raising money for breast cancer research, but a new article highlights how it's also spending over a million dollars a year being a trademark bully: specifically going after anyone else who uses the phrase "for the cure" or "for a cure" as part of their own charitable fundraising. The organization claims that it "needs" to do this to protect its trademark, but as we've pointed out time and time again, that's simply not true. First, you could argue that raising money for charity is not "use in commerce" and thus not deserving of a trademark. On top of that, the phrase "for the cure" certainly sounds descriptive, and again perhaps doesn't deserve a trademarkBut, even assuming that the trademark itself is valid, there are all sorts of ways it could deal with other charities using that phrase without acting like a legal bully. It could simply agree to license the mark at no cost to other legitimate charities. SGK's claim, of course, is that it doesn't want the phrase to get sullied by unscrupulous organizations, but that doesn't mean it needs to pull out the legal guns when a legitimate charity comes along. Just let them use the damn phrase, and let everyone help raise money for charity, rather than legal bills.
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: breast cancer, charity, for the cure, trademark
Companies: susan g. komen
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
New SGK slogan
[ 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 ]
Re:
What is this world coming too?!?!?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opinionized
/"\
|\./|
| |
| |
|>~
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Opinionized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opinionized
My heart was in the right place. Maybe next time.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My question about these disease charities is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My question about these disease charities is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My question about these disease charities is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My question about these disease charities is...
http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/17/charity-10-personal-finance-philanthropy-10-most-eff icient-charities_slide.html
(Use the next button near the top of the screen.)
And here is a list of the criteria they use to determine that and some examples of good and bad organizations:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/16/forbes-charity-200-personal-finance-philanthropy- 200-largest-charities-charity-10-intro_2.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective Charity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selective Charity
Is that a form of cancer that makes you unable to genuflect at church?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selective Charity
However on the main topic - I certainly wouldn't donate to a charity that used legal action against other charities in this kind of case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selective Charity
Yes men can get breast cancer. Yes charities have a right to benefit a specific group. But lets get some equal time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Selective Charity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Selective Charity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Selective Charity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selective Charity
I don't remember what the organization is, but they were doing it for the very reason you mention.
Actually, I believe they said that prostate cancer is now more deadly than breast cancer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selective Charity
Definition of PROSTRATE
1
: stretched out with face on the ground in adoration or submission; also : lying flat
2
: completely overcome and lacking vitality, will, or power to rise
3
: trailing on the ground : procumbent
See prostrate defined for English-language learners »
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Not to mention, breast cancer is not simply a woman's disease. Tens of thousands of men are diagnosed each year and they have a much higher rate of dying from it. Susan G. Komen must hate men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
By using either in a manner such that people view it as an indication of affiliation with your charity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark license for different product??
http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/naked-license/
"licensing is generally permitted provided that the mark’s owner retains the right to approve the licensee’s use of the mark and supervise any element of quality control over the same. The logic is clear: if the mark is to have the import of signifying a particular source of certain goods or services and the public is going to have the right to rely on that mark for that significance, then when the mark is licensed to a party for use other than by the mark’s owner, the mark’s owner should be in a position to approve the use of the mark in relationship to the licensee’s good or services so that the public, upon seeing the mark in regard to those goods or services provided by the licensee, may rely on the same good will and quality it has come to know in relationship to that mark. " http://j.mp/g9gwOZ
ps I am not a lawyer. But I also agree that it seems the claims appear overly broad (e.g. objecting to use of the color pink)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark license for different product??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark license for different product??
I am a photographer. If I set up a website called "Red Cross Health Photographs" with a large red cross logo, I would expect customers to be confused and the real Red Cross to have an excellent case against me.
That said, there is no doubt a trademark owner can be overly agressive is asserting broad rights where there may be little or no real customer confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trademark license for different product??
I read a case recently dealing with the American Society for the Blind (I think). They sued some guy who was teaching people how to run scams using their logo/seal.
Trademarks for charities serve a legitimate purpose and maintaining trust (i.e., if it's got our trademark on it, you can trust it) is a key goal for charities.
That said, not sure if every case cited in the article was dealt with properly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark license for different product??
They could prove us all wrong by:
1) Choosing to trademark something other than a color. That is obvious and clear abuse of trademark.
2) Choosing a phrase that is uniquely theirs as opposed to a phrase that is GUARANTEED to be used by others in the same space. I mean, please.
But that's not what they want. They want to carve out breast cancer donations for themselves, and prevent others from working in the same space, so they PURPOSELY chose to trademark those items, to position themselves as the preeminent vector for breast cancer donations.
Shameful. They are working AGAINST the very thing they claim to be for. They are really working to create a solid and long-lasting career for themselves. I can only wonder what the head honchos in that organization make for a yearly salary...
Millions?
TENS of millions?
Don't doubt it.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark license for different product??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark license for different product??
You sir, are not the average douchebag, in that your sloth prevented you from even doing the research to disprove anything I suggested.
Congratulations?
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark license for different product??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, sort of like that unscrupulous organization called the "Susan G. Komen for the Cure"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My wife's answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My wife's answer
Anyway, I am an IP attorney ... I showed my wife a news article about what SGK is doing, and she wrote to them that she will no longer donate to them as a charity. I said good for her!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Owning color in a specific trademark
Also, I believe that T-Mobile has a trademark claim of the color combination (specifically the numbers) to Magenta. In their trademark registration, they claim RAL 4010, which (loosely) translates to CMYK 10/90/30/0, and color mark registration 395 52 630. Their trademark is based in more of a fact. They reference RAL, a German color-space system used to match the exact hue and shade of certain paints, similar to Pantone®.
So I would like to know what color combination (specifically the numbers) of the flavor of "Pink" Susan G Komen has registered because they may be in trouble. You see, Owens-Corning also has a trademark on the use of pink for insulation and I think Owens-Corning may have been around a little longer and may desire to exercise it's trademark rights against the Susan G Komen Foundation. (See: In re Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 774 F.2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Tiffany & Co. has a claim for a certain blue color it uses for jewelry boxes (Pantone® 1837), and UPS has a trademark on brown (Pantone® 462C). Their claims remain quite specific.
But Ownens-Corning already owns "PINK"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
Search Term: Susan G Komen
Field: Owner Name and Address
Result Must Contain: All Search Terms
295 results don't seem to include the color. but lots of phrases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
http://ww5.komen.org/KomenNewsArticle.aspx?id=6442451806
They also seem to use/own a number of hues. Does their trademark (if one is registered) allow a full spectrum of hues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
So, Owens-Corning doesn't "own pink," nor does T-Mobile, nor does SGK. They own trademark rights w/r/t use of pink in a manner likely to cause confusion with their use.
So, if SGK starts selling pink insulation, they might have a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
Secondly, this article is about "for a cure" and "for the cure" is a missing a subject. Using bad grammar may be trendy in marketing circles. But it's an open-ended statement and lacks specificity. If you say "get educated for a cure to stupidity", is this an infringement or fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
I don't think that's easy to do. There will always be gray areas and close cases. That's true for any trademark, whether it's a color, word, slogan, logo, etc.
"If you say "get educated for a cure to stupidity", is this an infringement or fair use?"
Probably neither. I'm not sure what being an open-ended statement or lacking specificity have to do with anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
If someone started using pink to fund-raise for leukemia, Susan Komen probably has a decent legal case (although the public relations nightmare of the breast cancer people suing the leukemia people would be disastrous).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Owning color in a specific trademark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban SGK products...Support charities that actually put the $ towards...charity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban SGK products...Support charities that actually put the $ towards...charity.
What makes you think they are not using money to fight cancer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Charity Rule
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2889356/nonprofit_ceo_salaries_jobs_that_pay.html
"As of March 2009, the CEO Hala G. Moddelmog, earned a salary of $459,406."
Throw in the fact that around 1/4 of the money they raise actually goes to research.
I wish to be charitable, but I dont trust ANY charitable organizations anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple Charity Rule
I don't think it's realistic to be able to find a competent CEO for a global organization like the Red Cross, for example, on a typical refugee's salary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple Charity Rule
Pick a reasonable criteria, how many charities meet it? Yes, the criteria of "refugee pay" is absurd. However I was talking about a charity here in America that deals with "typical Americans", not one concerned with refugees starving because their country values growing coffee over food, and has ethnicities they get away with not caring about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Simple Charity Rule
How about whatever the charity is willing to pay and the employee is willing to accept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless they are currently involved in a contentious trademark lawsuit, it is very unlikely that they spend anywhere close to $1 million a year (i.e., their entire legal budget) on trademark-related legal fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Susan G. Komen has always only cared about the money
If it ever says Susan G. Komen on it, I won't buy it. I'm not going to support the killing of babies--which is what is even causing breast cancer in some women.
I have family members who have died from breast cancer and luckily a couple who have survived. I support them--but not this wolf in sheep's clothing trying to make money off of their suffering.
To quote Alveda King:
“Isn’t it funny that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is raising money to find a cure for breast cancer while at the same time giving millions of dollars to an organization that performs abortions on women and provides birth control both of which have been linked to breast cancer.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Susan G. Komen has always only cared about the money
http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content/AboutUs/MediaCenter-2/planned_parenthood_winer_201 0.pdf
So does the National Cancer Institute (regarding abortion and breast cancer):
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/abortion-miscarriage
And the NCI indicates there are conflicting studies about oral contraceptives and breast cancer:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives#2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And ascii art always gets my posts filtered, well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Mistake
Susan G. Komen is succumbing to industrial era business tactics. It just doesn't work anymore, it's short sighted on their part. Oh well.
As far as the money, that's just part of the game, whether it's this or that, charities don't always spend the money how everyone would want. (I'm sure there are people out there THRILLED the money is being spent to protect the trademark, whatever.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about The Cure suing Susan G. Komen?
So now should they own "The Cure" brand and sue anyone who uses the term ala Monster Cable and Susan G Komen?
Susan G. Komen will only receive bad publicity for this behavior and donations will be made elsewhere.
I don't expect the silliness to stop as this issue will be in the news repeatedly and get exactly the response that Monster Cable did.
It is a standard corporate bully lawsuit because it is likely they have more money and staff attorneys unlike the people they sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]