Twisted Sisters Coffee Shop Decides To Fight Back Against Trademark Bully Band Twisted Sister
from the you-go-twisted-sisters dept
We recently wrote about how the band Twisted Sister was acting as a trademark bully and threatening a small coffee shop in Kansas, called Twisted Sisters. As we noted, the coffee shop name had nothing to do with the band, but actually was named after (you guessed it) a pair of sisters who had been called that by their brother decades ago (long before the band existed). The coffee shop had indicated at the time that it was going to change its name, but it looks like it's now decided to fight back. jupiterkansas lets us know that a lawyer agreed to represent them pro bono and is trying to explain trademark law basics to the band's lawyer. In the meantime, the coffee shop's owner sent a friendly letter to the band, saying that the shop's name has nothing to do with the band and that she really can't think of a better name, so she'd like to keep it.Russell’s letter begins: “Quite honestly when I first received your letter I truly had to go to the site you provided to learn of this band. Sorry. After Elvis, the Beatles and the Beach Boys my love of music leans to country.” She recounts the history of the shop and the name’s origin in a nickname hung on the sisters by their late brother. And she closes: “Right now I am at a loss as to what we could possibly call ourselves that could emulate why we are ’Twisted Sisters Coffee Shop’ with our logo of a tornado coming out of a ruby red coffee cup. We are open to Mr. French’s ideas for us.”I still think she should have used the line "we're not gonna take it; no, we ain't gonna take it; we're not gonna take it, any more..." but perhaps her approach will lead to a more amicable outcome.
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: coffee, trademark, twisted sister
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about...
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In fairness
Dee Snider says he has no control over the name and has nothing to do with it.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/jn06gu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: In Fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: In Fairness
While the risk of confusion is low, it is possible. Allowing the coffee shop would basically be giving up on the trademark except in the very narrow context of the band, diluting the value of the name. After that it wouldn't be far to get Twisted Sisters naming and branding by third parties on everything from food to leather jackets and makeup sets. Where do you draw the line?
Can you explain why a trademark holder shouldn't protect their trademark? The "it's sweet little old ladies" thing doesn't add up to much in a legal sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: In Fairness
Not true.
The rights to a trademark can be lost through abandonment, improper licensing or assignment, or genericity. A trademark is abandoned when its use is discontinued with an intent not to resume its use. Such intent can be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, non-use for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment. The basic idea is that trademark law only protects marks that are being used, and parties are not entitled to warehouse potentially useful marks. So, for example, a recent case held that the Los Angeles Dodgers had abandoned rights to the Brooklyn Dodgers trademarkMajor League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd., 817 F. Supp. 1103 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)."
Now, I doubt just by naming a coffee shop after the band could cause "Twisted Sister" trademark becoming generic.
Trademark rights can also be lost through improper licensing or assignment. Where the use of a trademark is licensed (for example, to a franchisee) without adequate quality control or supervision by the trademark owner, that trademark will be canceled. Similarly, where the rights to a trademark are assigned to another party in gross, without the corresponding sale of any assets, the trademark will be canceled. The rationale for these rules is that, under these situations, the trademark no longer serves its purpose of identifying the goods of a particular provider. Dawn Donut Co., Inc. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1959).
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm#6
Nope, I still don't see how they can lose their trademark by not defending it against a coffee shop named before the band existed in the first place.
Please try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: In Fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: In Fairness
But you then state that "Where the use of a trademark is licensed (for example, to a franchisee) without adequate quality control or supervision by the trademark owner, that trademark will be canceled." This is a generally accurate statement. The trademark owner's likely concern is that the coffee shop's use of the mark, without any quality control imposed by the band, could be considered a "naked license" which would diminish the band's right to lawfully claim the trademark.
In many such instances the prior trademark user/owner may offer a license for continued use of the mark, albeit under some sort of regimen that ensures adequate quality control or supervision by the trademark owner. The prior trademark owner may in some cases help the smaller user transition to a new brand. Often times these things work out just fine with little headache for everyone involved.
In short, the law does compel trademark owners to police use. Doing so does not make them into a "trademark bully." Although some do act in overly heavy handed fashion, I don't see evidence of that here. SEE letter:
http://pvpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/letter-sisters.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: In Fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: In Fairness
http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/24
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: In Fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: In Fairness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/10/25/food-truck-to-twisted-sister-were-not-gonna-take-i t/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Prairie Village Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Further, I don't see how they have any right to claim both Twisted Sister AND Twisted Sisters. Are they saying their band is called both? They shouldn't have a claim to it and their band name. That's like me going and naming a band, and then claiming copyright/trademark on every synonym for that band name. It's just not good marketing. For one thing, it limits creative expression down to nothing. For another, your fans are going to know the difference. Someone who actually likes Twisted Sister is going to know what it is called enough to know that they don't use the "s."
*shaking head* All of this policing of this stuff is seriously getting out of hand these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is living under a rock a viable legal defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're not gonna take it! No we ain't gonna take it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why not the other way around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: why not the other way around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't see this
I'll see if I can get him to post a comment, but he's not one to talk about legal issues.
It is a shame. He has fought really hard for the first amendment (including congressional testimony), so seeing this is a bit disheartening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]