Richard Branson Claims People May Confuse 'I Am Not A Virgin Jeans' With His Virgin Properties

from the er,-they're-saying-they're-not-virgin,-richard... dept

Thu, Aug 2nd 2012 7:05am — Mike Masnick

Forbes has an article about how lawyers representing Richard Brandson's Virgin property have sent a letter to "I Am Not A Virgin," a small jeans company in NYC, complaining about its attempt to register the trademark on its name in the US. The Forbes report falsely states that it's a copyright issue (seriously, don't people check these things?) and also seems to miss that the letter is about a planned opposition to a trademark registration. Peter Heron, I Am Not A Virgin's founder, put together an amusing video reading the letter and questioning Branson's claims: My favorite bit is him asking if Branson thinks that people walking by "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" in the store are likely to be confused by it. In fact, you could argue that the likelihood of confusion (or dilution, since that's in play too) is extremely minimal here. Hell, the entire name of the company is claiming that it's not a "virgin," though I'd imagine that's a reference to the more common definition of the word, rather than Branson's widespread brand. Considering that one way companies often avoid tradmeark issues is to clearly state that they are "not affiliated" with a particular trademark, how much stronger of a not affiliated statement would Heron need than having the very brand claim it's not the other brand?

To be fair, the letter itself is much more on the friendly side of the spectrum, when it comes to legal nastygrams. It doesn't take a completely hardline stance, tries to express a common viewpoint (applauding the support for "the planet" and entrepreneurs), and even makes some (kinda silly) suggestions for alternate names ("I Am Not Chaste," "I Am Not Pure" -- to which Heron suggests "how about 'I Am Not Made By Richard Branson'). But, it doesn't go to Jack Daniels' level of friendliness, in making it clear that no change will lead the company to officially seek to have Heron's trademark (which he's had for 3.5 years) revoked by the USPTO.

It's also clear that Heron is milking this for all its worth as a marketing strategy (which is a pretty reasonable strategy, given the situation). But that raises more questions about why Virgin/Branson even went down this road in the first place. They had to know that they were just asking for a public shaming.

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: i am not a virgin, jeans, peter heron, richard branson, trademark, virgin

39 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:32am

That makes two Virgins fighting. What could possibly go wrong? *drools over mud/gel/whatever fetish wrestling between hot girls*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:45am
  
  Re:
  We could innovate on this.
  
  Hot girls wrestling in mud in a pool made of piezoelectric materials. The mechanical energy created could generate enough electricity to power my house lamp for 5 minutes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 10:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's geek fun for you. Well done, dear sir.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hot girls wrestling in mud in a pool made of piezoelectric materials. The mechanical energy created could generate enough electricity to power my house lamp for 5 minutes.
    
    Won't work. Who needs a house lamp when you have two hot girls wrestling in mud.
    
    I'll be in my bunk.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Doyle (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 11:56am
  
  Re:
  Ummm... one of them was clearly not a Virgin ;)
  
  (And isn't it kinda funny how the actual Virgin here is the one doing the phucking...)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 1:17am
  
  Re:
  No, it's a fight between a virgin and a declared non-virgin, and already the virgin is looking neither pure nor chaste.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:38am

Virgin, Windows, Apple and more
Virgin must abe a very complicated brand to manage these days. Megastores sold, music production company sold to EMI ater a pump-and-dump stunt buying the Rolling Stones catalog shortly before selling and whatever else... More seriously, those companies choosing a common word for their brand such as Virgin, Apple, Windows, etc... should be denied any ownership including in the commercial space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:39am

Trademarks that use common words should be less exclusive than unique words. Specifically, common words like monster or virgin should be usable in the names of other companies as long as there is a meaningful link to the meaning of the word, it is not the same type of product, and it is used in a way that avoids confusion.

Companies who use common words as trademarks have chosen a mark that has already suffered a form of dilution, and therefore their ability to claim exclusive use should be weakened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:48am

This is simple.
This is just what happens when 1) Branson is bored 2) Branson spends too much time in the New Mexico desert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:51am

Branson seems deluded here...
He's claiming that "virgin" is the same as "mercedes"?!?!

Pop quiz - when was the last time you heard this conversation:

"Hey man, did you finally do the deed with Veronica?"

"No, I'm still a mercedes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tim Griffiths (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:21am
  
  Re: Branson seems deluded here...
  This is the main point, did your trademark have a meaning before you claimed it? If it did then you should have to accepted any use of the word that makes use of that meaning.
  
  I'm not a virgin makes sense in a world where Virgin did not exist. Now "I am not a virgin TV" makes a given amount of sense pre Virgin but makes significantly more sense post Virgin and as such I think could be argued to be a trade mark problem.
  
  That said I don't think trademarks should be given on single existing words full stop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:29am

said it before and i'll say it again. when Branson was flogging bootleg tapes and anything else to earn a shilling, he didn't give a shit about who he damaged or how. now he is so successful, like so many others, the 'worm has turned' and he has become as big an arse hole as others in his position
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:39am

Tie-in to next article: Madonna's "Like a Virgin"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hfbs (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:50am

Bransons explanation ("I Am Not A Pepsi" etc) is weak at best.. If I saw two items and they had a completely different font, typeface, logo, were a different whole damned product, I don't think I'd get confused and buy one, thinking it was a other. It's the case here as well. IANAV is using a standard sentence (questionable in itself.. I don't see how common sentences can be trademarked anyway.. I wonder if I can trademark 'I'm Drinking Tea' and 'I Shower Naked'?) so how can Virgin claim to own some of it?

Of course, lest we forget, Virgin Cola:
"Hey dude, buy me some cola, would you?"
"Sure thing!" *buys Coca Cola*
"No you idiot! I wanted Virgin Cola! This hipster party's ruined!"

I think it's safe to say there was more chance of confusion there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 8:56am
  
  Re:
  I am not an Apple.
  I am not a Harley.
  I am not an Otis.
  
  I can keep going. In each case, a major trade name was used, yet they do have OTHER meanings.
  
  Branson's company is right here. Trademarks need to be zealous protected, otherwise their scope may be limited and their use in the end termed generic.
  
  Personally, I took the t-shirt as a 1% type protest shirt, claiming not to be "the man". I got the Virgin media connection right away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hfbs (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    There's a difference between protecting your trademark and pretending you own a common word and all iterations, meanings and uses of it.
    
    Personally, I took the t-shirt as a 1% type protest shirt, claiming not to be "the man". I got the Virgin media connection right away.
    And I personally didn't. I took it to mean 'I have had sex before'. What now? What if there is no Virgin Media connection? What if the guy actually did mean 'I have had sex before'?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Robert Doyle (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Get your head in the gutter and out of the trademark/copyright/blah blah blah
    
    I also don't think you can buy those jeans as it would be false advertising - only a 40-year old virgin would not think of the sexual reference immediately (wait - can I make a legitimate reference that happens to now be the title of a movie or because they made a movie I can no longer use that phrase? So Dazed and Confused about this... crap! I can't be both of those at the same time anymore either! Fuck this, I'm going to Whitecastle... damnit!)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 12:35pm
    
    The one that will REALLY get you in trouble:
    "I am not Anonymous."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Aug 2012 @ 3:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Trademarks need to be zealous protected
    
    Holy Guacamole! I heard fucken beeps come out when you said that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 4 Aug 2012 @ 3:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I just realize MAFIAA might be made up of Borgs.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  Because "I am not able to think of a proper name, I'll use a known one then cry over it, make tons of publicity and money for myself and get the person complaining to be the asshole".
  
  I'm launching my company soon. I'll make millions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOlz, 2 Aug 2012 @ 9:29am

Up next
Richard Branson's letter to the Catholic Church over their use of The Virgin Mary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 9:50am

It's the new fad in the US. Register a name that looks alike a big company, then cry wolf over it. It's reverse-suing-everyone psychology in action and it's working great so far. But people will catch on and those crybaby trolls will die out on their own.

Imagine the publicity the guy got with this stunt? Probably making tons of cash already. Lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  So the letter's a fake you mean ?
  Ironically I tend to agree that Branson's lawyers unwantingly fed the troll with their seemingly overreaching legalese...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re:
  So if I started a company called "I Am Not A Monster", which company would you be trying to claim I was doing that with? Could I be claiming I'm not an overpriced cable? Or perhaps I'm saying I'm not a slightly disgusting energy drink?
  
  Or maybe, just maybe, I'm saying I'm not a bad person. Gee, it's almost like some words have meaning outside the corporate landscape!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    funniest point about Monster cable, is that it's run by a bunch of self-serving scum that are closer to qualifying as monsters than human beings.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 10:44am

but if virgns dont fight this terrorist win, do you not understand that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 11:12am

Trademarks only cover a particular domain
The article above doesn't say, so does anyone know what domain the "I am not a virgin" trademark is registered in, and what domain(s?) the "Virgin" group's trademark is registered in?

Does Virgin sell clothes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 3 Aug 2012 @ 2:49am
  
  Re: Trademarks only cover a particular domain
  Does Virgin sell clothes?
  
  That's what I'm wondering also. Unless I'm not searching hard enough, I can't find any indication of the Virgin Group of Companies selling clothes under the Virgin brand either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 11:25am

Forbes seems more and more like a blog at this point. It's like they rarely check any of their sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Francisco George (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 12:01pm

Yes the Strings are the same
The Strings in vogue are very faraway in the background of Vogue but yes they are the ones of Salsoul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 1:43pm

My nephew goes to catholic school, and is in "The Virgin Club". I wonder if they will be sued soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 5:45pm
  
  Re:
  As if members of something called "The Virgin Club" don't have enough problems to deal with already.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2012 @ 2:27pm

I was planning on visiting Branson, Missouri, but I got confused and visited Richard Branson instead. I oughtta sue him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave (profile), 2 Aug 2012 @ 6:29pm

He's only Human
The human brain has a wonderful facility for masking rationality. It's called the EGO. Somebody dared to use HIS word, and must stop or pay. What does he do about the Olive Oil companies, or, better, the Catholic Church?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lennart Regebro, 3 Aug 2012 @ 1:13am

It's nice that Richard Branson gives all this extra advertising to this small and previously unknown jeans company. I assume that this means he is not planning to get into clothes anytime soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:28pm

There's a saying...
Any business with Virgin in the title ends up f****d in the gutter.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:31pm

I'm waiting
Memo to Richard Branson....

Sue Al Qaeda for promising "72 Virgins" if you blow yourself to bits in a public place.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2012 @ 3:39pm

I always thought that Virgin Media was about Madonna!
Who Knew!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]