Humane Association Trademarked 'No Animals Were Harmed'; Threatens King's Speech With Infringement Claim
from the descriptive? dept
Another day, another story of trademark law gone wrong. You've all seen it at the end of movies, where there's a little line somewhere that says "No animals were harmed in the making of this movie," or something along those lines. What you might not know (I didn't) is that the American Humane Association has trademarked the term "No animals were harmed." The reasoning, of course, is that it wants to monitor scripts and movie productions to make sure, in fact, that no animals were harmed. Apparently, the Weinstein Company, producers of the highly acclaimed movie The King's Speech did not choose to work with AHA, but still included the line at the end of the movie, leading the AHA to threaten legal action unless the line is removed from the movie.While the article at THResq suggests that the trademark is valid, I wonder if that's really true. "No animals were harmed" certainly sounds descriptive, and that's a no-no for a trademark. On top of that, it seems you could easily argue that the phrase has become generic, for the simple fact that I'd bet almost no one outside of the movie business has any idea that AHA has the trademark on the phrase. Even if the term was a valid trademark for the AHA, I still don't see how a lawsuit would get very far. Would AHA claim a likelihood of confusion? That would be tough to show. Dilution? Seems like a stretch. On top of that, assuming it's truthful that no animals were harmed in the making of The King's Speech, it would appear that the Weinsteins had a really strong defense.
While I can certainly appreciate what the AHA is trying to do, I'm not sure it's legally sound. If it wanted a strong trademark, why not design a basic "No animals were harmed" logo that would identify with the AHA and which movies could put at the end of their films so that people knew that the AHA monitored the film to make sure no animals were, in fact, harmed. But focusing just on the phrase seems like a really weak idea.
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: king's speech, no animals were harmed, trademark
Companies: american humane association, weinstein company
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Monkey Island
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monkey Island
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Monkey Island
I guess it's the poodles who would end up in prison then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't trademarks have to do with commerce? Is the AHA a commercial organization? If it isn't, what is this supposed trademark supposed to protect? Saying its a trademark "to monitor scripts and ensure no animals are harmed" has nothing to do with trademark or trademark law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trademarks are supposed to protect CONSUMERS from confusion. In theory, this trademark exists to protect consumers from believing the AHA verified something that it has not. In practice, nobody knows that the AHA normally verifies the claim, so it is a pretty useless trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't trademarks have to do with commerce? Is the AHA a commercial organization? If it isn't, what is this supposed trademark supposed to protect? Saying its a trademark "to monitor scripts and ensure no animals are harmed" has nothing to do with trademark or trademark law.
Yeah, I had thought about including that, and it's a good point, but I figured that was going even deeper into the weeds. But it is still a good point as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No beasts were caused detriment
No living thing was spoiled
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps they should reword it as "no cute animals were harmed".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone wants to save the cute ones, don't they. So we get the animals to line up one by one.
-What are you?
-I'm an otter!
-And what do you do?
-I clap my flippers together cutely and bounce a beach ball
-You're free to go. Next!
-I'm a cow.
-Don't want to hear it! Get on the truck!
-But I...
-I don't care! You're a baseball glove! Next!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a lot easier to identify a mouse or rat as an animal than a random insect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Animals Were Harmed!
If you don't harm animals and then accidentally forget and mention that you didn't harm animals, you could get sued. On the other hand, you can tell people that you harmed animals and be completely in the clear.
I think I need to put on my alligator boots to wade through this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yoda-speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yoda-speak
It would be: "Harmed animals were not."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if they are in fact providing a service of certifying that no animals are harmed during the making of a movie that is distributed across state lines (and therefore the certifying mark is on a product in interstate commerce), they've cleared the interstate commerce hurdle.
I don't know any of this for sure, but while we're speculating...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not saying much. Simply breathing clears that hurdle, these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the humane society website
btw, what animals were in the movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: from the humane society website
Helena Bonham Carter.
Although they DID have to tranq her a few times so they could style her hair/fur....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: from the humane society website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kind of a weak attempt by the AHA. They do need some kind of cute seal or "logo" that actually could be enforced. Of course, they would charge for the right to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about a baby seal, and beside it a club covered with a red slashed circle?
Baby seals are cute, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you've also accidentally explained why the phrase is merely descriptive and not worthy of trademark protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
does this mean that there has never been an incident where an animal has been harmed on a film set ? that seems unlikely, given that actors occasionally get injured (even killed). would love to know whether there is a film with credits admitting to something (not to wish harm on any animal, just to know the system "works") maybe the aha themselves could enlighten us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sounds like what they are trying to do is offer a sort of certification and they are going about it completely wrong. What they should be doing is trying to establish themselves as a recognized standard and make companies / movies / whatever want to show that they are associated with their certification, not trying to play tricks to try to make it impossible to claim you don't harm animals without being associated with their certification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yoda-speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yoda-speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yoda-speak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact
For example, copyright says I can't copy a Harry Potter book without permission from its author or copyright holder(s).
Trademark says I can't write a completely original story, then slap on a Harry Potter stylized font on the cover (you know the one, the font Harry Potter is written in in the title of the movies), because that would confuse potential consumers into thinking its an actual Harry Potter book. Trademark has nothing to do with me actually copying the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact
Plus, I hope they have deep pockets, because if they plan on suing the producers of one movie, surely they plan on suing the producers of every movie that had the disclaimer. I'm pretty sure Hollywood has better lawyers than some mere vetting group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B'stards!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe a certification mark
I guess it could be they're claiming it's a certification mark. Like the UL (Underwriters Laboratory) mark. Basically certifying that the product so marked has met certain criteria.
I agree that it seems generic/descriptive. Might be different if the mark were "AHA Approved" or "AHA Harmless" or "Critter Friendly" or something like that.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filmed outside the USA anyway
So why would the AHA even have "juristiction" (The Kings speech - surely only the RSPCA would be good enough)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting Your Ass*
Protecting Your Ass*
*and your horse, your dog and every other animal on your set
http://www.protectingyourass.org/assets/docs/pya-brochure.pdf
It does show a funky little dog/horse/elephant/film logo along with "No Animals Were Harmed (R)"
A lookup at: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4007:uiajcu.2.1
Shows that they are trying to use it as a certification:
"The certification mark,as used by authorized persons, certifies that the treatment of animals during motion picture, film, television, and live show production conforms to the standards, regulations, guidelines, or specifications developed and published by the certifier. Applicant is not engaged in the production or marketing of the services with which the mark is used."
Seems like a stretch.
Perhaps their Asterisk should have read
*And how to keep us from suing it.
It does show a funky little dog/horse/elephant/film logo and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protecting Your Ass*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harmed animals were not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Harmed animals were not
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No animals were harmed in the making of this movie, but quite a few put to death so we could have lunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should design a mark with a logo
Design a "NH" no animals were harmed logo. Trademark that.
---
Very few animals were harmed in the making of this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Irony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All in the phrasing?
Or maybe a logo with "Kill Animals" in bold type wih the red "No" symbol (red circle and diagonal line) through it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All in the phrasing?
(also, I'm suing you for using it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do any of these things play in this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there is something VERY wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there is something VERY wrong with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $88/hr is cheap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Be clear about it
I agree with the author. Why not make a logo instead of just a simple phrase? I bet if The King's Speeches was not a hit, AHA wouldn't be making any of this fuss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]