Colombia Denies Family Of Pablo Escobar Trademark On His Name
from the trademark-is-a-hell-of-a-law dept
We've seen cases previously where people have trademarked their own name, or an estate has trademarked the name of a family member. While that concept still strikes me as somewhat silly, those marks are typically used to ensure false endorsements aren't promoted by companies that otherwise wouldn't have received one. And that makes at least some semblance of sense in conjunction with the overarching purpose of trademark law: avoiding customer confusion. In other words, you don't want a famous name associated with a product that hasn't actually been endorsed.
However, I'm at quite a loss as to what the family of famous cocaine-slinger Pablo Escobar imagined they were going to do when they attempted to trademark his name. Did they somehow think that the infamous drug-pusher/murderer was going to show up on Coca-Cola cans? Or perhaps they're planning to release their own line of clothing? More likely they, like so many others, are confused on what the actual limits on trademark law are and wish to use the mark as a censoring tool for how Escobar is represented in documentaries and historical media.
Either way, it doesn't matter, because Colombia has now repeatedly denied the request for the mark.
The Commission of Industry and Commerce said Thursday that granting a trademark would be immoral and subvert public order. It said the name Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria is associated with a dark period of violence in Colombia that claimed thousands of lives as he fought extradition to the United States.Now, I'm not all that fond of the morality claim, but it brings a smile to my face to see a governing body put the interest of the public in front of someone requesting a trademark. It sure would be nice if we saw more of that in the States.
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: colombia, pablo escobar, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We have seen it in the US. It's one of those things that probably wouldn't bring a smile on your face or be nice if we saw more of it, as in when the lesbian biker group "Dykes on Bikes" had their trademark denied.
I'm glad that a criminal's family was denied the right to create a government sponsored brand based on that criminality, but broad principles like "the public interest" are easily subverted without specific protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great product placement, Timmy! Followed my lead.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130926/01390424661/universal-music-lawyers-realize-that -taking-down-charlie-brown-smiths-remix-not-brightest-idea-theyve-had.shtml#c14
Not TOO surprisingly, I snared a humorless baboon! That "S. T. Stone" apparently took it seriously!
I'll just take a pause, now -- the pause that refreshes! Mmm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it was worth it, there is no more coke in the USA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My guess would be that the family was after a piece of this pie when they wanted to Trademark the name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]