Poor Ben & Jerry Must Have Had A Rough Adolescence If They Think Ice Cream Can Be Confused With Porn
from the we-couldn't-make-this-stuff-up dept
I don't know about all of you, but thanks to Techdirt, one of the first things I think of when porn is brought up is trademark law. Okay, so that isn't even remotely true, but I have written about the convergence of those topics before. Back then, it was porn studio Vivid complaining that HTC calling one of their phones "The Vivid" was a trademark violation. They apparently thought the phone came with an app that (joke deleted due to extremely poor taste of the author).But trademark complaints can flow in the opposite direction as well. Reader Will writes in about how Ben & Jerry's, the ice cream producer, is suing Rodax Distributors and Cabellero Video for trademark violations surrounding their DVD "Ben & Cherry's".
The trademark lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan said the sale of hardcore and exploitive pornographic DVDs and related goods is tarnishing Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc.'s name by creating an association with pornography. It said the claims arise from the distribution and sale of a series of DVDs containing "exploitative, hardcore pornographic films" featuring titles and themes based on "well-known and iconic" Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavors as well as packaging that contains key company features such as a grazing cow, green grass and large white puffy clouds.Yes, a cow eating its natural food below clouds is a key company feature. Even granting that, this is exactly how parody works. If you're making fun of something, which is what the pornographic movie purports to do (I haven't seen the video in question, only the cover, but I promise to do as much hands on research as possible), you're going to create a similar look and feel to whatever you're mocking. Porn has relied on parody protection in the past. I can understand why this might make Ben & Jerry's (BJs, if you like...) uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it actionable. Certainly it would be difficult to allege brand confusion, since no one in their right mind is going to think an ice cream company is going to dive into porn.
Even their complaints about the "names" of some of the film's stars should be covered by parody.
It identified some of the X-rated names similar to its own as "Boston Cream Thigh," "New York Fat & Chunky" and "Peanut Butter D-Cup." Ben & Jerry's has ice cream flavors titled: "Boston Cream Pie," "New York Super Fudge Chunk" and "Peanut Butter Cup."Again, parody. And those names aren't even all that risque. In fact, I'd say they're about on par with names like "Schweddy Balls" and "Caramel Sutra", which are actual Ben & Jerry's flavors. Now, as of the time of this writing, a judge has issued a temporary restraining order (pdf) against the porn producers pending an appearance on September 12th to hear their side of things. In the meantime, I'll be awaiting the court's decision at home, while trying to determine whether the Chubby Hubby in my freezer is a tasty treat or a sex toy.
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: ice cream, parody, porn, trademark
Companies: ben & jerry's, cabellero video, rodax distributors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can't take a joke.glad I never eat their Ice Cream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ice cream is something you can probably use for some kinky physical activity.
Oh and the fetish is of course on Ben & Jerry. Just love to watch that sexy lawsuit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like Karamel Sutra...oh wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
15 USC 1125(c)(1):
"Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury."
So, Timothy, either you're off on this point or you were just expressing some personal internal curiosities about frozen foods in a way that...ahem...seemed off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
I think the tarnishment argument is a winner, as did the judge who shut it down ex parte.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
I just don't think it has any bearing on the point I was making. The humor of the article, the back-of-the-eyeballs-tinglingly funny humor, rests on how stupid it is for Ben & Jerry's to file a trademark claim, because not even a moron in a hurry mistakes ice cream for XXXX. That's funny on it's own, but your execution was even better. Mike should pay you more for how funny that was.
So funny that my next thought was, man that's just too mean to be fair. And really, if there's another basis for their claim outside of the confusion factor, then it really isn't fair. I wasn't sure, and so I googled. It sure seems like the law is very clear that there is a basis for their claim, and so, your funny joke really doesn't seem fair or accurate here.
As for parody, I think it could be a legitimate defense, but whether or not it holds up doesn't affect that your joke wasn't fair. I like making fun of people, I'm not that good at it, so I like it even more when you make fun of people. But not unfairly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
But it's not.
Average_joe...don't you ever think about what you write? You do have a point with it not having to be the exact same business...WHICH IS WHAT THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT! Ben and Jerry's are NOT in the porn business. Ben and Cherry's are NOT in the ice-cream business. Thus, trademark law doesn't apply!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Maybe you should stop and think "Huh, do I know what I'm talking about?" before ripping into someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Dude, really? I mean, at certain times (other times, not so much), I've found his comments to be glib, overstated, rapaciously smug, and just downright detestably wrong, but the ONE THING the guy does is friggin' think about what he writes.
I've also seen him concede a counterpoint and admit when he's wrong. It wasn't in response to ALLCAPS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
That's like saying a McDonald's and a Buddhist temple are related, because both have golden/yellow roofs and involve cows in some way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
They served this awesome curry corn fried pie that almost convinced me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
I won't speak for Tim... and I will admit (as I have in the past) that I find the (relatively recent) addition of "dilution" to trademark law as a complete bastardization of the purpose of trademark law.
But... even so, I fail to see how this has even a slightly dilutionary effect on Ben & Jerry's. Is someone somehow going to think less of Ben & Jerry's ice cream because of this? I can't see how that's likely at all. It doesn't "tarnish" the brand. It's a parody, a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Seriously? I mean, I'm *sort of* accustomed to you thinking everything is fair use and nothing is confusing and whatnot, but this is still kind of surprising.
I mean, this is pretty much textbook dilution by tarnishment.
As for the parody-based defense, that would depend on factual detail not present in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
I'm not a law expert, so I wasn't sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
The idea started with Schechter's article in the Harvard Law Review in 1927 where he argued that distinctiveness was being diluted by a mark's use on unrelated goods, so it's been around for a while. I'm curious though what you mean that it's a "complete bastardization of the purpose of trademark law." Trademark law has more than one purpose. I know you focus on consumer confusion, which is no doubt the main purpose of trademark law, but there's more to it than that.
I'm not sure if you've read Posner's exploration on dilution. It speaks to the economics, so you might enjoy it:Ty Inc. v. Perryman, 306 F.3d 509, 510-12 (7th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added).
But... even so, I fail to see how this has even a slightly dilutionary effect on Ben & Jerry's. Is someone somehow going to think less of Ben & Jerry's ice cream because of this? I can't see how that's likely at all. It doesn't "tarnish" the brand. It's a parody, a joke.
It tarnishes the brand by associating pornography with it. I don't blame Ben & Jerry's for not wanting to be associated with hardcore porn. And the First Amendment argument is less forceful when the alleged infringer is clearly just riding on their coattails for commercial purposes. This isn't core, protected speech.. They aren't making a statement about Ben & Jerry's. They're trying to trade off of Ben & Jerry's goodwill at the expense of Ben & Jerry's goodwill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Me, I find that a rather sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Really? Why?That suggests that I as as consumer am incapable of associating a single word or name with 2 separate concepts and realising the difference. How would you read it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
That is the exact opposite of an inability to recognize the difference.
The tarnishment is not based on an "incapab[ility] of distinguising one thing from another." The Posner quote explicitly states as much.
Rather, it's based on (a) simply increasing (perhaps by a minimal amount) the "imagination cost" in making the distinction, although nobody questions the average consumer's ability to do so, and (b) the likely raising of the tarnishing concept/brand/activity in the consumer's mind when the tarnished concept/brand/activity is raised. This second part actually depends entirely on the consumer being able to hold two distinct concepts in their brain at the same time.
I'm not a big fan of dilution law, but arguing that it depends on consumers' supposed inability to distinguish two things is hogwash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
The same is true of any other product that happens to have a similar name but completely different function. Somewhat co-incidentally I did once meet a stripper called Tiffany and I can say it has had exactly zero "tarnishing" effect on the jewellery brand. Nor does the number of splinters I've had stuck in various parts of my body over the years tarnish my image of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and I know a couple of people terrified of spiders who liked the Spiderman films (though god knows why).
Since I don't believe I have some unique ability to hold my thought processes seperate in this way, I'm struggling to see how this "tarnishing" effect that the law describes could cause any significant "harm" (presumably to change a purchasing decision) in anyone of normal cognitive function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Me, I find that a rather sad.
The point isn't whether the public can tell the goods apart (that's consumer confusion, which is not the issue in dilution), the point is whether the brand is harmed by the diluting use. I think something that neither you nor Mike is considering that protecting a mark doesn't mean the public is harmed in the process. It's not a zero sum game. Don't make the knee-jerk reaction that stronger rights for the mark holder equates to making the public worse off. I don't think that's how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
That is indeed the point, one which you have providing zero evidence or explanation of. Instead of cutting and pasting swathes of text, why don't you explain how Ben & Jerry's are harmed?
"Don't make the knee-jerk reaction that stronger rights for the mark holder equates to making the public worse off."
Many people would be amused and entertained by the parody names, which is their whole point. If the names were successfully prevented from being used, fewer people would see them and be entertained, meaning they are by definition worse off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
I'm just glad Coffee Heath Bar Crunch is such an unwieldy target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
You expect me to prove the case without having all the facts. You think I have access to the facts needed to prove that this use harms Ben & Jerrys. LOL! I can tell you the theory and the law, and I can explain how I think the theory and the law might apply here (as I've already done), but the proof would come from surveys. Note too that you can't prove that this doesn't harm Ben & Jerry's.
Many people would be amused and entertained by the parody names, which is their whole point. If the names were successfully prevented from being used, fewer people would see them and be entertained, meaning they are by definition worse off.
The whole point, as far as I can tell, is for Ben & Cherry's to ride the coattails and to make money from and at the expense of Ben & Jerry's. As I've shown elsewhere in this thread, the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial. The law balances the First Amendment and rightholders' concerns. You appear to think that no balance is needed and we should always favor free speech over rightholders. First of all, it's commercial use so the First Amendment concerns are not full force. Second of all, protecting the rightholders actually protects the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Weird Al, I would think, would be able to use the parody defense, but in the copyright context. Different deal entirely. Not sure what ApologetiX is. Mad Magazine, insofar as the issue is trademark, isn't using the parody of a mark as a mark. In other words, they aren't selling their goods using the parody mark to identify their own goods. Their goods are still identified as "Mad Magazine." Contrast that to the situation you have here, where Ben & Cherry's is using the parody to identify their own line of goods, the Ben & Cherry's videos. (Hope that helps. I've been studying all day and I'm fried at the moment, so sorry if it's unclear.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A couple of points about average joe's comments
Also I said only that tarnishment claims frequently succeed when a mark is associate with porn; "usually" seems to me a bit strong. LL Bean nevertheless lost its dilution suit against a High Society parody that overflowed with nude models; and although the Second Circuit gave the Dallas Cowboys a win against the porn film "Debbie Does Dallas" it is not at all clear that the result would be the same today.
The public ought to be able to hold Judge Kaplan accountable for his orders in this case, and the only way to do that is to see exactly what BJ argued, and what evidence it presented. His allowing the sealing of the images over which suits has been filed -- and indeed the non-filing of the moving papers in this case (including whatever arguments may have been made for the sealing) -- is disturbing. Sealing order is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105327851. I was, though, heartened to see his warning that he might ultimately decide differently in light of the public right of access to judicial records, which is particularly strong in the Second Circuit.
Here is the docket as I saw it online yesterday: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105327852
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
I didn't say the parody defense was not available when the use is non-commercial. I said it's not available when the use is commercial.
Here's what I said:
"The key is to note that the defense is not available when parodies are used as a mark."
I then quoted the "Chewy Vuitton" case which states:
"Although the TDRA does provide that fair use is a complete defense and allows that a parody can be considered fair use, it does not extend the fair use defense to parodies used as a trademark."
To which I added:
"From what I understand, the porn defendants are issuing the film series under the "Ben & Cherry's" mark. If so, the parody defense is not even available."
And then I said later in another post:
"As I've shown elsewhere in this thread, the parody defense is not even available since the use is commercial."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
To be sure, sometimes BOTH defenses apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
To be sure, sometimes BOTH defenses apply.
I think I get your point. At first I said the parody defense is not available when it's being used as a mark. That's right in the statute, which provides: 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c)(3) (West 2012) (emphasis added).
So I'm correct to say that the parody defense is not available for Ben & Cherry's since they are using it as a mark, i.e., as a source identifier. (They are also using it commercially, but that's irrelevant here.)
But then in my later post, I said that the parody defense it's not available when it's commercial use. In my mind, using it as a mark means using it commercially, so I was (purposefully) conflating the two. But the statute only says the defense is not available when it's used as a mark. It doesn't say the defense is not available when it's commercial use. So I suppose you could have a situation where the use is not as a mark but is commercial, and there the defense would be available.
If that's not right, let me know. Otherwise, thanks for pointing out my error.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A couple of points about average joe's comments
Point taken. My bad. I don't know the numbers of when it's successful and when it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Nobody is disputing that. I don't know how many times he or anyone else needs to clarify that.
The theory is NOT that people will be confused into thinking one is affiliated with the other.
The theory is that (a) the brand slightly less able to serve a distinguishing function (not incapable) with each additional unaffiliated use of the brand, and (b) the use of the brand with unsavory material causes consumers to think of the unsavory stuff when they see the original brand (though they are not confused about any affiliation).
I think it's true that this probably (at least in some cases) causes some harm to the brand owner. That doesn't mean it should be a legitimate claim, though. But, under the law as it currently stands, it is a legitimate legal claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
In the absence of a change in a purchasing decision I don't see any harm. So if you (or anyone else.. AJ seems to be of a similar mind as you) have a different thought process that you think does affect purchasing decisions, or creates some other harm beyond a nebulous "ooo it's got a similar name and it's... icky!" I'd be genuinely interested to hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
If Brand X sausages are a very famous brand of delicious sausage, and someone starts selling Brand X laxatives, an intelligent person may not be confused as to actual affiliation between the parties. However, an intelligent person may nevertheless have laxatives (and the not-so-appetizing result) called to mind the next time he sees Brand X sausages.
I think that would constitutes one example of dilution that does not depend on the consumer being a moron (and may actually cause actual harm).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Seriously, this has to be the weakest argument for a law I think I've ever seen - basically the argument seems to be that you can resrict on the basis of something that might happen in some small number of people's minds where they have free will to associate as they please and could choose to associate literally anything with a product. And this basically on the basis that once company got here first in a completely unrelated field?
Under that argument almost anything could be tarnishment. Even before you get into how people's minds can freely associate the strangest things for all sorts of reasons there are enough brands globally that you couldn't avoid it.... take the brand Durex for example - firmly associated with condoms in the UK and with sticky tape in Australia. Tarnishment? Which way? "Oh I don't want one of those sticking to my percy when I try and put it on" or "Ew, I'm not wrapping a parcel for my grandmother with THAT"?
Or does the woollen goods shop in Scotland get to sue the fast food chain McDonalds for tarnishment of their brand since they got there first (by a hundred years or so I understand) and probably don't care to be associated with such a horrible thing as bad fast food?
Which brings me back to: Called to mind is very different from "changed a purchasing decision".
In your hypothetical example, what percentage of people of, oh let's say, 85IQ or above would you imagine would decide not to buy the well known X-sausages because they also know there's a laxative of the same name?
For bonus points, what percentage of those people who already ate the apparantly very popular fat-coated offal tubes do you imagine would change their habits on the basis of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
No, it's a very lucid and well reasoned way to say "The core purpose of trademark is to help a moron in a hurry make a useful, quick gut-feeling decision based on prior associations with the brand mark"
If the gut-level sweet yummy feelings associated with a yummy dessert have too much ahemcoughsalad tossed in that breaks the trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
When I say it, I just mean it makes things easier. But whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Almost everyone in the thread seems to agree we're not talking about anyone confusing any kind of association between the 2 products so in your scenario of the arore-mentioned "moron in a hurry" (who apparently isn't really a moron), explain the need for a law that protects against the thought process that goes;
"Well I've been eating Ben and Jerry's Icecream for years and I know I like it, but now I know someone completely not associated with them made a porn film I can't possibly buy from them again"
or even
"Hmmm I fancy an icecream, look there's a Ben & Jerry's and a Haagen Dazs next to each other hmmm I heard both are great icecream. Oh but wait, I heard someone else once made a pornfilm with names like B&J's flavours... guess it's Haagen Dazs then"
Or, as someone else mentioned for this case, even on the infinitessimal chance that such an loose association with sex might play some tiny part in putting someone off (I dunno, how many religions or cultures with strict sex taboos eat icecream?), what's the difference in sexual association between "Peanut Butter D-Cup" and "Karamel Sutra"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
Makes sense in the Tiffany example, but less so in the Ben & Cherry's case. First of all, because they slightly change the names (including the product names) it is clear that it is meant to be a parody, so when you see the actual "Ben & Jerry" name it is less likely that you think of the porno you recently saw and much less likely that you need to put in any mental effort in figuring out which brand it refers to. Now, if there was a "Ben & Jerry's" advertising in the local paper that's actually an Escort Service, that dilution by tarnishment argument would be much more straight forward. I think by simply having changed the names they'll probably be ok with a parody defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
The key is to note that the defense is not available when parodies are used as a mark. The "Chewy Vuitton" case makes this point:Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 266-67 (4th Cir. 2007).
From what I understand, the porn defendants are issuing the film series under the "Ben & Cherry's" mark. If so, the parody defense is not even available. That doesn't mean it's necessarily diluting, though. You have to do that analysis separately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
For one, I don't think an offending work requires very much tastefulness or artly quality at all to overcome a tarnishment complaint is if bears a real and actual free speech parody claim. Further, their own use of sexual brand associations, which Tim did well to note, raises a legitimate blue on black question for me.
With respect to this though, there's a lot to consider. Even in view of Ben & Jerry's sexed up brand choices, their own vague implication of some similarity between sexual desire and ice cream craving is probably beneficial to their rep. Whereas if the porn in question served to strongly associate explicit graphic images of an unsavory nature with their brand, you'd better believe that there COULD be actual harm in such an instance.
Mike I know you said you couldn't see how this could be tarnishment, but if a food brand's distinctive name unavoidably triggers vivid images that turn your stomach, that's gonna have actual impact.
Ultimately, I think the tarnishment vs parody battle really does come down to a matter of degree. It has to---on both sides of the spoon. Consider the extremes for each.
Parody: IF the only element of parody is the name itself, I don't see it standing up to a strong tarnishment claim. The reason is that in such a case the only potentially protect-able speech message happens to be a one to one intersection with the tarnishment itself. This is somewhat hard to explain, but consider a hypothetical:
A video named Hairy Garcia (set aside for the moment the irony of this already being a borrowed name) which has no other element of parody and simply shows a lonely housewife ordering pizza and then having a graphic hoedown with a completely hairless pizza guy. Nevermind the totally unforgiveable false advertising, the only real parody there is the homophonics in the title, which really only serves to abuse the Ben & Jerry's trademark for some extra attention and marketing while piling an extra drizzling of nasty on top of their ice cream name.
However, the very instant you leave that extreme, from there on, the marginal parody value required for free speech protection drops off sharp. The free speech imperative there forward, becomes increasingly difficult to ignore. Might it even be enough if said housewife asks said pizza guy to pickup ice cream on the way?
No, it's not very much of a parody message at all, but it extends beyond just simply rubbing their name and face in the private video world, and even that middling, tawdry scrap of free speech requires at the least some real consideration for protection.
On the far other end of the scale, I can think of (though I wish I hadn't) plenty of scenarios (yes, those kind of scenarios) which would have an almost undeniable legitimately defensible parody claim, even if otherwise utterly and completely tasteless AND even if somewhat tarnishing.
If the basic idea of the video was something as simple as a graphic presentation of the creator's own ice-cream infused fantasies where the basic porn product is visually merged with visions of whatever the flavor, so that the message is nothing more than a simple "Ice cream makes me...'hungry'", then yeah that's full on, actual parody. Shouldn't that be protected no matter how much the Dairy-Duo dislike it?
Tarnishment: In the same way, the tarnishment issue could vary in degree and it's important (uncomfortably so) to consider what degree of tarnishment is harmful enough to limit what degree of parody claim and vice versa.
Take again their use of sex branding. It's one thing for Ben & Jerry to capitalize on a vague implication of sexual ecstasy when naming their flavors. It's something else entirely for an otherwise non-parody use of their trademark name to be chanted repeatedly with an extreme, increasinly anxious tension in association with images so graphic and detailed that no parent could ever feel comfortable serving said flavor for, or even be seen perusing the label in front of their child. That's harm-tarnshised on every stinkin' surface.
Damn, I mean don't think of them now, but later, when you've got some nice and safe VANILLA in front of you, man think of the CHILDREN!!
Now then again, there's the fact that Ben & Jerry's already uses a far-from-vague, highly sensory, multi-sensory brand name with specific imagery of a sexual nature.
I mean damn! You just CAN'T MAKE a Schweddy tarnishment claim. There's simply no getting away from the already heavily loaded, forcefully instant poetic thrust of the Schweddy Balls.
What IF ANY tarnishing harm is really done if a video producer simply composes a visual interpretation of exactly that which the sound of the name unavoidably bounces into the average, questionably a-dult mind?
All that said, at this point it seems sufficient to me that both sides have at least some basis for their claims and it really should have a hearing before a judge, poor wretched soul that would be.
Disclosures: I'm admittedly somewhat biased in favor of the ice-cream on the temporary injuction. I'm slightly more okay with it when the chilling effects are applied to perfectly smooth and creamy sweetened butterfat. But upon hearing, if they prove up any actual parody, honestly I'd be pretty stumped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I think you're wrong about the law on this one.
[ 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 ]
Thanks!
::Googles Ben & Cherry's::
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...except for that other stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me sitting at a table, eating white coloured ice cream.
Buddy: Hey Rikuo! What'cha eatin'?
Me: Cream Pie! Nom nom nom
Buddy backs away slowly....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ewwwww.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*unghh*
That's an image I really don't want in my head...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *unghh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: *unghh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's an app for that
I came with an app once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's an app for that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's an app for that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope I'm not talking about porn you crazy mofo O_O or am I? >:D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please unring this bell
Oh... Trademark Law now sounds like a pretty good male porn name. Thanks a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: please unring this bell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It also occurred to me that a lot of people eat ice cream while watching movies, and there is always the question of which is the right flavor for a film? This movie company has made it easy for their viewers- it's something from B&J's. B&J should appreciate their effort, if anything.
B&J's should also appreciate the flavors that weren't turned into movies, including (use your imagination for what these movies would be like):
Red Velvet Cake
Dublin Mudslide
Banana Split
Dave Matthews Band Magic Brownies Encore Edition
Stephen Colbert's Americone Dream
What A Cluster
... (could go on but thinking about the Colbert one has turned me off to both movies and ice cream for a while...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dilution, not infringement
That said, this strikes me as a dilution case involving a claim of tarnishment. If so, there is no obligation to show confusion and, in fact, lack of confusion would be irrelevant. I am no friend of the dilution cause of action, but historically, the one area in which trademark plaintiffs frequently succeed in arguing tarnishment are the cases in which a defendant, and especially a commercial defendant, associates a trademark with either pornography or narcotics use.
The fact that the defendant makes a parody claim might or might not make the defense litigable. One would have to look at the product to make a judgment about whether this is really a parody or just an effort to exploit a trademark to sell a pornographic film.
That said, considering that this is a TRO against a movie, there are some very disturbing questions that come to mind. PACER not only does not contain the complaint; although the TRO recites that there were declarations, the docket does not reflect any such documents having been filed. The TRO says nothing about what efforts were made to give the defendants notice and an opportunity to be heard, and why the judge was justified in issuing a TRO without notice, if in fact there was no notice (Rule 65(b)(2) expressly requires such a recitation). The case was filed September 5, and the judge entered the TRO on September 6. It would be nice to see some explanation of why the plaintiff was entitled to get such quick action, possibly before defendants had the opportunity to present an opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dilution, not infringement
I noticed that too (except for the 65(b)(2) thing; nice catch), and I thought it was funny that Tim (the author of this article) was so focused on consumer confusion (which isn't really the issue) that he missed the First Amendment and due process issues. Where's the cries of prior restraint and due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dilution, not infringement
No, the Chubby Hubby was the funny part. I was like, "Wait, this is NOT Mike."
The other was just ironic. Not that I noticed it on my own.
Also ironic: His first sentence so clearly expresses the core conflict between trademark and dilution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does BJ's make porn now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Anonymous Cowards" are diluting the meaning of the word insightful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Update
[ link to this | view in chronology ]