Waffle House Says Rap Song Called Waffle House Violates Its Trademark
from the um,-no,-it-doesn't dept
The latest in trademark bullying comes courtesy of a chain of restaurants called Waffle House, where (one assumes) waffles are served. But one thing Waffle House doesn't waffle on is its commitment to being a trademark bully and abusing trademark law. That's because it sent a cease & desist letter to rapper J.R. Bricks for daring to have a song called "Waffle House." The company claims that you can't do that without permission. To put it bluntly, the restaurant's lawyers are not being truthful. Waffle House appears to have a couple different trademarks on the phrase "waffle house" (and some more on the logo), but none are for anything having to do with music. One is for restaurant services and the other is for "Mugs, cups, portable beverage dispensers, thermal insulated beverage containers, and beverageware sold in registrant's stores located in its restaurants" as well as "Clothing, namely, shirts, t-shirts, jackets, ties and headwear sold in registrant's stores located in its restaurants."I don't see how a song violates that trademark at all. Conceivably, Waffle House could have a common law trademark in a rap song, but I highly doubt it. This just seems like flat out bullying. Bricks said he thinks that Waffle House just doesn't want to be "associated" with hip hop:
"I don't think Waffle House's actions were motivated by racial discrimination," said J.R. Bricks, a Havana, Florida native and United States Air Force veteran now based in Atlanta, GA.Of course, that's got nothing to do with the purpose of trademark law, at all. There's no "likelihood of confusion" here, and any argument for "dilution" is simply ridiculous. This is Waffle House abusing trademark law to stop an artist from offering up a song that is perfectly legal.
"But I do believe it is based on cultural discrimination," J.R. Bricks said. "I don't believe they want to see their company associated with the Hip-Hop lifestyle. The song portrays what we do in the South after we tear it down at the club. I don't speak on violence in the record. I just speak on having a good time."
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: j.r. bricks, song, trademark, waffle house
Companies: waffle house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
I agree, however...it's interesting to relate this to other stories on Techdirt about the business model of companies sponsoring musical artists. Before I read about this possible business model, if I would have heard a rap song that included a reference to the Waffle House, I would have just thought it was a song about some dude going to the Waffle House. But after...there might actually have been some doubt in my mind as to whether the artist was being paid by the Waffle House.
a chain of restaurants called Waffle House, where (one assumes) waffles are served
You assume? Mike, you haven't lived until you've been in a Waffle House at 3 AM on a Satuday night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
I know right? It's a strange mix of fear and hilarity served with a side of good, cheap food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Advertising is content is advertising" pitfall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait... Waffle House?
In seriousness, it appears to be another sad example of a trademark owner thinking they can control every single instance of that particular grouping of letters coming together. Next, we'll see Coca-Cola suing VH1 for their rampant use of the word "coke" in every "I Love The 80's" episode ever made.
What happens if the next cookie-cutter teen-star writes a song about the woes of teenage employment in “McJobs”… will McDonalds sue them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait... Waffle House?
They actually already threatened to sue Merriam-Webster for adding "McJob" to the dictionary... but they didn't go through with it thankfully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McJob#History
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait... Waffle House?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait... Waffle House?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait... Waffle House?
I need to open a diner called "Diner," or maybe a restaurant called "Restaurant."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait... Waffle House?
Best to avoid confusion and get that trademark.
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait... Waffle House?
WAIT!!!!! Shouldn't Congress be the one suing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait... Waffle House?
Well, it's a completely generic description.
But the lawyers who profit from those generic “trademarks” have more influence than the public. The courts heartlessly sell the public down the river.
[ 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 ]
Songs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about locking up culture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hip hop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A simple solution.
Or does the Waffle House Legal Team (tm) have a trademark on that too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattered,_Smothered_and_Covered
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wo-Ho
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wo-Ho
Err, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wo-Ho
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THIS IS NONSENSE
How is it that the Waffle House lawyers can stay in their own skin after they prostituted themselves so readily? There was a time when being an IP lawyer meant being a good guy/or girl, being on the side of the angels, advancing good against bad. Sadly, those days seem to be gone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS IS NONSENSE
"long gone"? those days never existed
oh you mean like in the eyes of the public? i guess so, people are starting to wake up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
THIS IS NONSENSE
How is it that the Waffle House lawyers can stay in their own skin after they prostituted themselves so readily? There was a time when being an IP lawyer meant being a good guy/or girl, being on the side of the angels, advancing good against bad. Sadly, those days seem to be gone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comedy = good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz1cfwFmv1w&feature=related
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NRBQ
Could the legal dept way back then have worried about infringement?
btw: they were one of may favorite bands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the first...
Wouldn't that prevent a claim by the legal doctrine of latches?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]