Bath & Bodyworks Goes To Court To Explain To Summit Entertainment That The Word Twilight Existed Before The Movie

from the time-of-day-vs.-vampire-saga dept

Thu, Mar 10th 2011 10:05pm — Mike Masnick

We've covered many examples of movie studio Summit Entertainment being ridiculously overprotective when it came to the trademark on Twilight. Among other things, it's sued Zazzle for merchandise made by others (hello, secondary liability), it's shut down a Twilight fanzine, it's claimed that only it can make a documentary about the town where Twilight is supposed to take place and even shut down a silly 8-bit YouTube game that plays off of Twilight.

Apparently Summit is now going after totally unrelated products that have "Twilight" in their name. It sent a threat letter to retailer Bath & Bodyworks, because that company sells "Twilight Woods" body lotion. Rather than fold, or wait for a lawsuit, the retailer has gone to court to get a declaratory judgment that it doesn't infringe. It notes there's quite a difference here:

"The term 'Twilight' is used so as to evoke the idea of a particular time of day when the sun is just below the horizon, illuminating the landscape," the lawsuit says. "Whereas defendant uses the term 'Twilight' to refer to defendant's teen vampire saga."

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: confusion, trademark, twilight
Companies: bath & bodyworks, summit entertainment

59 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DrD., 10 Mar 2011 @ 10:17pm

Oh Summit. YOU SO CRAZY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  Summit is definitely crazy.
  
  You might even say that they've entered the 'Twilight Zone' in their activities regarding trademark.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zauber Paracelsus (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 10:18pm

What's the point of protecting the trademark on one of the most hated franchises ever?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- annamorphos, 10 Mar 2011 @ 10:32pm
  
  Re: hated?
  Because the "most hated" franchise has amassed billions (and billions) of dollars. I guess people just like throwing their money away on things they hate. -_-
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2011 @ 10:46pm
    
    Re: Re: hated?
    [citation needed]
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Greg G (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hated?
      Citation? I got your citation right here.
      
      I hate The Twilight Saga. In fact, no one I know likes it.
      
      I even saw one of the movies, not sure which one, but it was the worst movie ever. And yes, I mean ever. Even worse than Transylvania 6-5000 (because that at least had a hot vampire babe in it.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Joe (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        Isn't twilight that series about a young girl and her choice between necrophilia and bestiality?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sean T Henry (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 7:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        Yes but what she does not know is that her corpse love is really a "fabulous queen who wears to much glitter".
        
        It's good that B&B did not have glitter in "Twilight Woods" body lotion or they might have also been sued on the grounds that only there Vampires can sparkle. Watch out gay night clubs who are Vampire friendly YOUR NEXT.
        
        (Note: I have nothing against same sex relationships or there life style.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Llama, 15 Mar 2011 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        It actually does have glitter in it, hilariously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMG, 11 Mar 2011 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        You have never seen Troll 2 or The Room then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rekrul, 11 Mar 2011 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        You have never seen Troll 2 or The Room then.
        
        The IMDb has 18 films listed titled The Room. Which one are you referring to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 11 Mar 2011 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        "The IMDb has 18 films listed titled The Room. Which one are you referring to?"
        
        The only one that matters. The only one that is THE ROOM - the legendarily, laughably, incredibly bad one by Tommy Wiseau.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rekrul, 14 Mar 2011 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        Ok. I thought maybe it was the 2006 Belgium horror movie.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMG, 11 Mar 2011 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        What RD said. Words can't describe the awfulness of Tommy Wiseau's The Room. It has to be seen to appreciate how incredibly bad it is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - vivaelamor (profile), 12 Mar 2011 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        "I hate The Twilight Saga. In fact, no one I know likes it."
        
        Yeah, because that's such an unlikely correlation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DerFuzzy, 11 Mar 2011 @ 4:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hated?
      Citation:
      
      *I* hate and wish it would go away and hope they get a good legal smackdown with court costs of and attorney fees x 100000000000000000.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hated?
      I think he is referring to articles like this one, saying that Sumit is hoping to get $1.2 billion dollars, mirroring the first two that apparently made $1.1 billion dollars in ticket sales.
      
      But really, that film is boriiiiiiiiiing! and no were near "billions and billions" in revenues LoL
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Shawn (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        Franchise Films
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Shawn (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hated?
        Franchise does not equal Film ticket sales there is more oney in the franchise than just the box office take.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jsf (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 9:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: hated?
      According to BoxOfficeMojo.com the three Twilight movies so far have grossed about $1.8 billion at the theater. That doesn't include any DVD sales, the original books or any other merchandise. So yeah it is billions and billions of dollars.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 2:56am
  
  Re:
  Oh pop culture. YOU SO CRAZY!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:01am
  
  Re:
  Oh. And this:
  
  http://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh S. Myers (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 10:42pm

is there a possibility of money
in the declarative judgment? Would be nice to see these people not only stopped in court but forced to reach into their bank account and cough up a bit 'just because'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Lockyear, 10 Mar 2011 @ 11:06pm

If I go to a public park and start loading the benches and playground equipment into my truck, I will be arrested because taking something out of the public domain and trying to make it private property is basically theft.

The same should apply to people / companies who try to steal words.

PS I like the letter "M", from now on I think that everyone should pay me a license fee to use it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 10 Mar 2011 @ 11:24pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry. The Phoenicians have prior art.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 8:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah, the Phoenicians were infringing on Ug the Caveman's rights. He was the first to make the 'Mmm' sound, and the Phoenicians illegally took the sound and transformed it into a written letter without Ug's consent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Paul Hobbs (profile), 10 Mar 2011 @ 11:34pm
  
  Re:
  That's just plain dub. Ha! I don't owe you a sent!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vivaelamor (profile), 12 Mar 2011 @ 7:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    "That's just plain dub. Ha! I don't owe you a sent!"
    
    Who owns the 'C's?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re: Absurdities
  > I like the letter "M", from now on I think that
  > everyone should pay me a license fee to use it...
  
  The problem with modern IP law, is it's gotten so ridiculous that every time you think you've come up with an example that's ridiculously absurd to illustrate a point, you find out that someone somewhere has actually tried do it for real.
  
  The University of Texas actually tried to do this. They went all legal over a group of college kids selling t-shirts with a big capital "T" on the front, saying they held a trademark on the letter and no one could use it without their permission.
  
  Thankfully the court told UT where to stick it and told them they couldn't monopolize a letter of the English language and charge all others for its use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- another mike (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  Benches and playground equipment are property of your city parks department and not public domain. It is public property since it is owned by a government for the use of its citizens. Taking that property is theft; no "basically" about it but also nothing to do with public domain.
  Public domain is an entirely different concept of property. Attempting to misappropriate the works of Shakespeare, ironic as that would be, would not be theft since those works are in the public domain.
  So, no, the same does not apply because the analogy is flawed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Wolfwood, 10 Mar 2011 @ 11:24pm

Wow... Summit Entertainment finally has one movie that makes the studio money and they wanna spend all pf the profits on baseless lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 12:14am

They are MAD mad i tell you MAD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Duncan Yoyo, 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:55am
  
  Re:
  >They are MAD mad i tell you MAD
  
  No MAD is a registered trademark currently owned by Time Warner Communications and run as part of DC Comics.
  
  http://www.dccomics.com/mad/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 11 Mar 2011 @ 12:17am

Dear Summit Entertainment:

You do not own the word "twilight" in every instance it is ever used. We understand that you are protective of your exploitative, sexist, often disturbing series of books/films (which happen to feature one of the most unromantic "romances" in the history of creative expression). However, that paranoid protectionism does not give you the right to claim complete ownership of a word that has existed well before anyone who ever worked for your company was ever born. Please cease your idiocy, or we may be forced to regard you as being one of the least intelligent media companies of the 21st Century.

Sincerely,
Every intelligent, free-thinking person on the planet (in other words, everyone who isn't a Twilight fan)

P.S. - I'm with Blade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josef Anvil (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 1:42am
  
  Re:
  Internal Memorandum
  
  To: CEO Summit Entertainment
  cc: Board of Directors
  From: The legal dept.
  Re: Trademark Protection
  
  We, your legal team from the firm Dewey Cheetum & Howe, urge you to disregard the negative publicity surrounding our efforts to protect your trademark. While we understand that Twilight has been in use for the marketing of many products and services over the years, none of those were nearly as successful as the brand created by Summit Entertainment. Therefore all other uses of the trademarked Twilight should, at the very least pay an annual license fee to Summit Entertainment for use of the word.
  
  We expect quite a bit of resistance from those abusing your mark as well as from the court systems in the US and EU and so we are asking for another $10mil USD in order to properly represent your interest. We are certain that our efforts are saving Summit Entertainment far more than the $10mil we are asking to fund our ongoing litigation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 2:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    So, basically you're saying that we can't capitalize "Twilight"? Not even at the beginning of a sentence?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Duncan Yoyo, 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Can we still go to the Twilight Double header at the ballpark. It got shortened to Twi-Nighter yeaars ago so it may be safe.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 12:27am

Oh well
I guess there goes some nice(?) chocolates that have been around for years......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 12:49am

So why are you acting so surprised?
Summit's lawyers are clearly the blood suckers in this tale of horror.

Someone needs to tear down the curtains at noon.

.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:04am
  
  Re: So why are you acting so surprised?
  Got wood? Aspen's best, but Fir and pine'll do in a pinch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:29am

All that needs to be said about Twilight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:11am
  
  Re:
  I need to watch that series again. Been quite awhile.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shon Gale (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:20am

I thought the word 'Twilight' was a description of their mental abilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rex (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:38am
  
  Re:
  Not "Twilight", you're thinking of "Dim", and I agree.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:31am

previous art
In World of warcraft, theres several guilds with the name twilight that have existed for far longer than summit entertainment......wonder if they could sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:55am
  
  Re: previous art
  There is also a current plot story in WoW about the 'Twilight Cult', I'd like to see Summit go after Blizzard/Activision...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re: previous art
    However, the Twilight Cult doesn't have vampires....nor does Twilight Highlands....or the Twilight Council...
    
    But there are some pretty Twilight Drakes...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: previous art
  Ahh but Twilight Cutters didn't exist until AFTER the Twilight movies....Oops! Didn't mean to give them ideas!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:55am

Whoever owns the Twilight Zone IP should sue Summit. Their claim would be tenuous but about a million times more credible than Summit's claim against Bath and Body Works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fritz43, 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:35am

Twilight nonsense.
With regard to frivolous lawsuits, the English Rule should be universal: you sue, you lose, you pay *all* costs & fees related to the lawsuit, yours *and* the defendants.

Why is this not in place? (Never mind, I know why.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:49am

Is it too much...
Is it too much to hope that the judgement includes the phrase "The plaintiffs are hereby declared to be a bunch of money-grubbing morons."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Lockyear, 13 Mar 2011 @ 11:02am
  
  ...or blood sucking vampires...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 7:30am

I'd prefer if someone would drive a stake through the heart of the Twilight franchise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
duffmeister (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 8:36am

best description ever........
http://theoatmeal.com/story/twilight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 8:38am

I knew this was coming.... as soon as I saw Twilight Woods and thought to myself "What DOES Twilight the movie smell like.... Sure enough, I think they've got it..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny, 11 Mar 2011 @ 8:46am

If they think they own the word Twilight....
I want to see them break really bad. There was this game from a few years ago called "Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess".

I challenge Summit to go after the folks who "infringed" by using the word they supposedly own.

Summit vs. Nintendo????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 11 Mar 2011 @ 9:38am

I wonder what Rod Serling's estate thinks of all this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly, 12 Mar 2011 @ 3:55pm

Silly lawsuits over word "Twilight"
Shades of Monster Cable, suing everybody under the sun for using the word "monster" in any kind of commercial context. They even sued a mom-and-pop clothing store for using the name "Monster Clothing", and Disney for "Monsters Inc."

Such shenanigans as this give me the impression people filing such lawsuits are just greedy for money any way they can get it, and don't care who they ruin in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JonathanWOP, 13 Mar 2011 @ 4:15pm

Will they go after Hasbro next? Because the main character in the new My Little Pony cartoon is named Twilight Sparkle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]