Ridiculous: Trademark Board Lets Yankees Control 'Evil Empire' Despite It Being An Insult Used By Another Team
from the bad-news dept
Two years ago, we wrote about a ridiculous situation in which the NY Yankees (disclosure: I'm a lifelong Yankees fan) were opposing a trademark application by a small company who sought to trademark "Baseball's Evil Empire" for the sake of selling merchandise with that brand on it.
But, in this case, the Yankees still won. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that even though the team has never used the name, and even though it's a pretty generic and overused term, there is a likelihood of confusion and that people now associate the term with the Yankees. While I could see rejecting the term as not deserving any trademark at all, the idea that this is likely to cause confusion seems like a stretch. The team has shown no inclination in embracing the term (and its own filing showed that it felt the phrase was negative). The TTAB and the Yankees seemed to put a lot of weight in the fact that the Yankees sometimes use Star Wars music to suggest they were directly embracing the term, but that seems extremely weak, at best.
There's also a good conversation at Mike Madison's blog post on the story, in which someone notes that it would be fine if the TTAB made it clear that no one should have the trademark, but in this case, the court seemed to act as if the Yankees have the trademark, despite having nothing to do with the phrase. It repeatedly refers to the phrase as if it were the Yankees' own mark.
Meanwhile, it appears that the company that originally filed for the trademark, Evil Empire Inc., isn't giving up either, claiming it will continue making and providing Evil Empire gear, saying that the team "has never shown any indication that it plans to sue for trademark infringement over the use of the name on apparel." In other words, it's betting that despite blocking its own trademark application, the Yankees won't now go on to sue over Evil Empire's continued usage. That seems like a pretty big risk.
That said, the whole situation highlights (yet again) the nuttiness that is the end result of an "ownership society." Evil empire is a simple phrase that references Star Wars. The idea that it alone should be controlled by the New York Yankees seems preposterous.
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, evil empire, trademark, yankees
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No! Disney has always BEEN the Evil Empire.
Or isn't that Microsoft who owns that moniker? Then that would make Google the rebel's who are turning into the next Evil Empire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see, so now you're not only a shill for Google, you're a shill for the Yankees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
Hmm...
Who's first in this case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Star Wars Reference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Star Wars Reference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Star Wars Reference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Star Wars Reference?
And he was making a Star Wars reference when he did so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it's plausible
Considering that EVIL EMPIRE is commonly (though not exclusively) used to refer to the fucking Yankees, and especially given the designs shown here, it is possible that people who want to buy sports apparel of a level of quality associated with those bastards might get some of this, perhaps thinking that it is sort of self-deprecating humor.
Parody and satire should not be off limits in the trademark sphere, but it is tricky, certainly, to reconcile them with ensuring that marked goods and services are of consistent quality levels, such that the presence of the mark can be relied upon by customers as a reliable indicator of that quality. (E.g all COCA-COLA CLASSIC tastes the same, but not all soda does)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, it's plausible
Also, not a fan ehh? lol
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, it's plausible
Uh, what? If referring to the Yankees as the Evil Empire is a common occurrence then it must be an East Coast thing, because as a West Coaster this is the first time I've ever heard that.
(Disclaimer: I'm a life-long Seattle Mariners fan, so my opinion of the Yankees is rather low. don't really mind the players [a lot of them are actually former Mariners], except for that lyin' sonuvabitch A-roid.)
Also, for Star Wars, it was usually referred to as "the Empire" (formally "the Galactic Empire"). If memory serves, there was no evil in the name.
But yeah, Chubby Checker's lawsuit against HP for a defunct app makes more sense than the TTAB's decision.
What is the Trademark Trials & Appeals Board smoking, and where can I get some?
How long will it take for the Yankees to accuse Evil Empire, Inc. of trademark violation?
The Zen Master says, "We'll see."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, it's plausible
I'd never heard it, either. But though it's apparently a regionalism, that doesn't impact the potential for consumer confusion. It just impacts which consumers might be confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No, it's plausible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That warning box
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That warning box
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem here
And that is the real problem here, that people should be addressing but aren't. The ultimate chilling effect: "do you wanna get sued?"
When being involved in a lawsuit is so expensive as to be debilitating even when you are clearly in the right, something is clearly, fundamentally wrong with the entire system. No one should ever fear a lawsuit unless they actually think they're likely to lose. On the contrary, they should feel happy to have their chance to have their day in court, and prove that they have done nothing wrong. That's the way it used to be, in fact. But the way things have changed since then, preventing innocent people from defending themselves--or from even doing things in the first place that they would certainly have been vindicated for doing--have violated more people's rights than bad rulings ever have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick, supporter of legislated monopoly:
First, phooey on the topic. It's Mike yet again examining a grain of sand on the beach while missing the entire ocean.
Major League Baseball is a monopoly that exists only because of specific legislation to exempt it from anti-trust and labor laws. Some sharp operators got together early last century and bribed politicians for it. Been a FLOOD of money ever since, and more with television. It's now a sacred entitlement. That's how The Rich actually get income in "capitalism": from monopoly. Could be on rutabagas, but so long as protected, it's endless income.
I consider it HIGHLY significant that Mike at best picks and chooses which monopolies he wishes to exist. He claims to be against Big Media cartels exercising monopoly control, but he has no problem with Microsoft or Google. And here he tacitly accepts the MLB monopoly and even supports it -- besides the silliness of caring about which bunch of millionaire brutes win a sports contest.
You kids who just accept the world you were born into are likely unable to see that MLB is a monopoly or how that could be bad, but it's blatantly inconsistent with free markets. The mere existence of MLB should make you conclude that there are no free markets, only ones where those who got in early locked them up one way or another.
And if you don't oppose MLB, why oppose Big Media? They're just doing same as MLB in controlling the players, the game field, the referees, and getting gov't funding, but actually is a freer market because don't have such strong legislation. You CAN record a tune and compete directly with Big Media, but just try getting into MLB, even if a billionaire. (Oh, you're "free" to build a team outside of MLB? Ha. You'll be shut out of TV besides laughed at.)
So, Economist Mike: Why is MLB monopoly allowed to exist in a "free" country, and why after you say you don't want gov't creating monopolies, do you support it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Masnick, supporter of legislated monopoly:
(And if this sounds appealing to you, ootb, why don't you support breaking up the big publishing industries and not glorifying millionaire artists or seeking to have hundred million dollar movies made; smallness and authenticity could be a boon to the arts as well)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Masnick, supporter of legislated monopoly:
That said, go Tigers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick, supporter of legislated monopoly:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Masnick, supporter of legislated monopoly:
1 team from canadia
gazillion teams from the USA.
Hardly 'world', is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It must be lonely at the top of MT. Bullshit.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Checking the Newspaper archives
"The British people will not again expend their troops and their treasure in protecting that Evil Empire from the natural consequences of its continuous misgovernment." (6 Dec 1907)
Commenting on, apparently, Steinbrenner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue the trite verbiage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do not underestimate the dark side of the USPTO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]