Not Wise: French T-Shirt Company Tries To Trademark Anonymous Logo
from the this-will-not-end-well dept
Via Asher Wolf, we learn that a French company by the name of Early Flicker, who appears to focus on making and selling pop-culture referencing t-shirts, has applied for a trademark on Anonymous' logo and slogan (pdf and embedded below).
This does not seem wise.
If you look around, there are others selling Anonymous apparel, but trying to trademark the logo, and limit its use by others isn't just playing with fire, it's directly taunting a large group of people with weapons that shoot fire... and who have little hesitation in using them.
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: anonymous, france, logo, t-shirts, trademark
Companies: early flicker
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also think his post is likely a parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No in this case the utter stupidity of it
I'm waiting for a tshirt maker's web site to get blasted in the foreseeable future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOAD, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is why this is a bad idea. Plus I'd think you'd side with anonymous against this company since it's "theft" of their stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Be kinda funny if the "evidence" of anon's attack pointed at the head of the RIAA/MPAA........just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And me... Another Anonymous bringing it up... Wait...
Is this... Inception?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How utterly horrible!
I guess that means we freetards have been aiding aiding and abetting the Anonymous terrorists? Oh, we really are gullible aren't we?
It's terrible and we should all do penance now before the bronze cow idols of the RIAA and MPAA. Immediately and without fail!
/sarc off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The image is not the IP of the company trying to steal it's associated use/licensing rights by abusing legal tools. They did not design it, commission it, or buy any special rights over it from the rightful IP copymonopoly holder.
So now you support copying stuff that someone else holds a copymonopoly over, and actually depriving the rightful copymonopoly holder of their rights. That's not just using without permission, that's depriving the original owner of the use and of their licensing perogatives.
Most IP violations are not actually theft, but this instance has all the qualifying characteristics of actual theft. Unlawful appropriation depriving the rightful possesser/user/licensee of their prvileges and perogatives in the asset. That's theft and you're in here cheer leading for it.
Your mother must be so proud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
The headline I expect to see
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't pull on Superman's cape.
You don't spit into the wind.
You don't pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger,
and you don't mess around with Anon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not A Big Deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pshaw
You're such a pessimist.
What could go wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pshaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pshaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pshaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pshaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pshaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popcorn time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Popcorn time...
Share the popcorn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Popcorn time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Popcorn time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Popcorn time...
People should obviously not be allowed to review movies the first week after release.
Think of the poor artist, the children and above all the movie industry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Popcorn time...
Then for each movie, ONE person goes to see it, and the others refuse to go if they think its crap then someone else takes a turn for.....oh wait people are doing that already?
Damn now I can't copyright/patent and trademark the concep....oh wait yes I can, thank god for retarded IP laws........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Popcorn time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect lawsuits will be filed against this French company as well as cyber attacks on any websites run by this company as well as any that are associated with this company.
The only thing that "Early Flicker" managed to do was paint a big fat red bullseye target on its back. Now, just sit back and watch the fireworks begin. This should be interesting and quite entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No it's brilliant
There is also a good chance Anonymous may just ignore them, although other t-shirt makers or whatever will be subject to action. I wouldn't be surprised if they have an agreement with the government and/or copyright organizations etc.. Trademark infringement would be useful tool to add on to any prosecution of the Anonymous Freedom Fighters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No it's brilliant
I'm willing to bet they're not.
Remember HBGary? You really think a t-shirt maker is better prepared than a professional security outfit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not a fan of most of Anonymous' methods personally, but I'm also not a big fan of how bears tear people who piss them off apart. As it turns out, I don't throw fire at the bear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anonymous will most likely politely ask they drop the trademark application.
From there the company will find the internet a very hostile place for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They are not selling the identity, they are selling the wacky idea that you can wear this and be like the cool kids. Like Che t-shirts.
"There's something about that man in the photo, the Cuban revolutionary with the serious eyes, scruffy beard and dark beret. Ernesto "Che" Guevara is adored. He is loathed. Dead for nearly 40 years, he is everywhere - as much a cultural icon as James Dean or Marilyn Monroe, perhaps even more so among a new generation of admirers who've helped turn a devout Marxist into a capitalist commodity."
— Martha Irvine, The Washington Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_in_popular_culture#In_advertising
Anyone can take up the mantle of Anonymous, but it takes a moron to think you can take the mantle and turn it into IP you control. They think because Anonymous isn't a "group" that no one will stand against them, and it is very possible no one will protest the trademark application in the legal sense.
I await the response, I do believe the lulz to follow will be legendary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er, no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*slow golf clap*
I would like to congratulate Early Flicker on their recent decision to hire Paul Christoforo and Ocean Marketing to handle their PR decisions.
I am sure they have already retained Charles Carreon to defend them in court from the internet and a distributed reputation attack.
In the meantime, someone pass the popcorn and lower the blast shield...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seen that before
In the end, the Linux community managed to get the trademark reassigned to who should be its rightful owner (Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux). Wikipedia article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your chances are actually better. Armed forces generally have at least a modicum of discipline and some have rules about killing people unnecessarily.
I need popcorn. LOTS of popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a Bugs Bunny routine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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: Re:
(Swine is an offensive term! We perfer porcine-americans)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can imagine the stupid grin on my face, seeing people wearing that t-shirt, protesting, the legality of trademarking
Raise your cups fellas, here's to that non existent t-shirt company
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert:
Original quote found here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would seriously rather go up to a cop and throw shit on them.
I would rather stick a cactus up my pee hole.
I would rather do time in Gitmo.
I would rather share a cell with Charles Manson.
I would rather fight Super Megadeath Christ.
I would rather crash a Neo Nazi party and accuse them all of being closet homosexuals.
I would rather stomp on the Hells Angels colors.
I would rather roshambo with a NFL kicker.
I would rather stick a fork in my toaster.
I would rather eat homemade yellow snow cones in December.
I would rather travel to North Korea and take a shit on dear leaders statue.
I would rather pass a kidney stone the size of a baseball.
I would rather try to cross from Mexico to the USA with 30keys of Columbia's best taped outside my clothes.
I would rather be raped with a chainsaw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I eat yellow snow cones....mmmm lemon :)
You don't need to go to North korea...buy a Kim Jong Il statue from amazon and shit on it from the comfort of your own home!
As for crossing the border with Columbia's best are you referring to strapping yourself up with VHS tapes of the Care bears Movie and Mall Cop? because I'll shoot you myself before you get 3 feet outside Mexico City.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you were saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That guy was funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He went and taunted them to get hype... I think it might have gone poorly for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give them the finger, that's all Anonymous deserves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Come off it.
The real bullshit of anonymous is any moron with an axe to grind these days slaps on a Fawkes mask and claims to be anonymous. It's easier than standing up with your own name in front of the public and saying "I, Bob Smith, oppose this bill".
Anonymous doesn't do much except keep the 4chan kiddies happy and provide cannon fodder for real hackers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missing the point.
If you deny that anonymous does street protests, I could show you a lot more images. But you know what they say about arguing on the internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more thing.
It's really hard to take this argument seriously from an Anonymous Coward. Yes, I know it's an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument, but still.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On another note.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On another note.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On another note.
When it comes time to vote, when it comes time to pay taxes, when it comes time to do jury duty... they have my name and I am not afraid to use it. Here? Why bother? Anonymous will just hack and steal it, so why bother?
[ 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: Re:
Is it bad that the only people dumb enough to screw with nuclear things are the same people saying Anons are bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
screw them, trademark it and sue them to oblivion, hunt down those terroists and kill or jail them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You haven't really thought this through...
Because nothing stops an ideology by creating martyrs, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more thing.
HBGary is a small girl lost in the woods.
Ignoring the bear won't work, because the little girl just wrote a massive thesis (using tree bark) on how she planned to disguise herself as a bear, sneak into the bears cave and skin any cubs she could find and sell the fresh, dripping skins to the local woodsman.
The bear being smarter than the average - and also apparently able to read (suspension of disbelief is a wonderful thing) decided to beat the head of the little girl into mush before she could carry out her dastardly plan.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anonymous? Not so much.
Anonymous don't threaten. You start doing something they don't like, they don't say 'stop that shit or we'll attack', like, say, a terrorist would. That implies a level of organizational control that they clearly don't have. They just attack, using whatever seems like a good idea or whatever will get the most laughs.
There is no intent, no logic, no consistency, and your only defence is avoiding their attention. There are no consequences to leaving them the hell alone and plenty of consequences to annoying them like this. The worst part of it is that the more you dig in and try to go after them, the more attention you draw and the more Anons get involved - as if poking a bear with a stick makes it harder to kill as well as angry enough to rip your head off.
Anyway - that whole 'hunting down terrorists' strategy seems to be doing a pretty good job of making lots more terrorists, so maybe you shouldn't be recommending it as a solution here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anonymous? Not so much.
Anonymous don't threaten. You start doing something they don't like, they don't say 'stop that shit or we'll attack', like, say, a terrorist would.
Anonymous does threaten, search for their announcements to Early Flicker, Sony, and the University of Pittsburgh. They also state they will not attack or that they will cease an attack if the target complies with their demands.
That implies a level of organizational control that they clearly don't have.
They are a self-described collective, they do not want to be an organization.
They just attack, using whatever seems like a good idea or whatever will get the most laughs.
Anonymous follows the same methodologies used by IT Security penetration testers; gather info on the target, select tools based on info gathering, probe for vulnerabilities, exploit vulnerabilities found. This is far from "whatever seems like a good idea".
There is no intent, no logic, no consistency
Their intent is to either force compliance from the target or harm it (expose data, harass individuals, disrupt operations). There is logic involved. They have consistently accomplished their stated goals.
your only defence is avoiding their attention. There are no consequences to leaving them the hell alone
They select targets they believe have committed some wrong, they do not select targets at random. They also clearly state the wrong-doing they believe has occurred. The consequence to leaving them alone is that you will not be targeted.
The worst part of it is that the more you dig in and try to go after them, the more attention you draw and the more Anons get involved - as if poking a bear with a stick makes it harder to kill as well as angry enough to rip your head off.
See the Arrests section of the Wikipedia page on Anonymous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lets examine whats wrong with your perception of reality shall we?
Why did the "terrorists" your comparing to Anons attack the US. Oh might have something to do with the US deciding they knew what was best for other people and forcing their will and morals onto them.
This was not a short term cause and effect, but when you shit on someone long enough they tend to get angry.
Had the US handled situations better, there might never have been an attack.
Terrorists and giving into them.
Funny you should mention that given the US laws passed to keep some religious groups from bombing and terrorizing women seeking medical care.
So oh great and wise mind, what is Anonymous's bodycount to qualify them as terrorists? How many buildings have they destroyed? How many people maimed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously not a good idea! :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
united hackers assoication
Perhaps we need to up the pressure to include the french govt , and all companies that are bound inside france....
you want a cyber war you will get one , on this i side with Anonymous and will defend the rights of the planet earth to use "Anonymous".
SEEMS someone wants to stir up the pot as they say.
I have a birthday and wake up to this bullcrap.
TO the french :
GO read mentors last words , if you require a french translation no problemo ill do that. Cease and decist lest this go real bad and out of hand. IT will not be tolerated.
WE in the uha are not script kiddies and we do not always support Anonymous targets or actions however it is there choice and with the freedom we all should enjoy that they be allowed to continue and use said name. IF you trademark it , i will begin a legal fund and sue your company. i'll come up with enough ways to sue you that the cost to show up in court like the mpaa and ifpi do will be the death of you....
( insert extortion racket money grubbing settlement offer here LOL ).
NOT the bracketed will not happen.
I am anonymous as well you cannot trademark me.
WE all are....
CHRoNo§§
United Hackers Association
https://www.uha1.com
(location of one of the archives)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the above is a mug sold back in 2001-2 after the illegal fbi attack on canada and our servers....
all fbi could manage was a weak ddos.....
This is what you corporates play with when you try and rile us up....we are legion, and there is no cyber army on earth that can take us , and no gov't cyber force that is capable.
Why?
Because we are free....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read all about it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/anonymous-obliterates-french-firm-trademark-fiasco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]