Cosplayer Sent Cease & Desist By Carpet Company For Hotel Carpet Camouflage

from the carpet-bombing dept

Mon, Sep 23rd 2013 12:43pm — Timothy Geigner

The realm of cosplay seems to hold a strange spot in intellectual property limbo, where everyone is conscious that the getups are homages to popular movies, comics and video games, but nobody really seems to do more than shrug it off. Perhaps it's because everyone realizes these people are fans and are probably doing way more good than harm in expressing their fandom, or perhaps it's because you just shouldn't take the kind of forty year old guy willing to dress up in a Hello Kitty outfit to court and expect any good to come out of it. Either way, you typically don't see a great deal of hand-wringing by media companies over cosplaying.

But carpet companies are apparently a different story. Harrison Krix, a prop-builder and cosplayer, put together an incredibly cool camouflage outfit for DragonCon in Atlanta. The design was based off of the carpet used by the host of the convention, Marriot Marquis Atlanta.

Then Krix decided to sell the fabric he made so that other visitors to the convention the following year would be able to melt into the floors of the hotel as well. That's when the manufacturer of the carpet sent him a cease and desist.

Seems Krix was selling some of the fabric he made for the costumes on textile site Spoonflower, so that others could make their own for next year's show. He's since had to pull the design, having received a Cease and Desist from Couristan.

Someone, anyone, is going to have to tell me in what strange, stupid world it makes even a semblance of sense for Couristan to go legal on a dude selling outfits. Yes, they're based on the carpet design. Yes, they're designed specifically to look exactly like the carpet. But so what? Krix isn't competing with Couristan. The company isn't going to lose any business because he mocked up camouflage based on its carpet. What the hell?

In fact, this could have been an opportunity for Couristan to build up some good will around its name by acting human. Or, at the very least, it could have sat back and done absolutely nothing. Going legal seems to be the only possible choice that could produce a negative consequence, like getting the company name in lights for pulling a d-bag move. Well, done, Couristan!

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: carpets, cease and desist, copyright, cosplay, designs, harrison krix
Companies: couristan

60 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 12:04pm

Hands up if you kept reading Courtesan all along the article.

Excuse-me as I re-read the article misreading this specific word for extended laughter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 23 Sep 2013 @ 12:50pm

I am glad they have brought this to my attention. If they had not, I may have (at some point) been drawn into purchsing carpet from this company. However, having seen this HORRIBLY DISGUSTING EXCUSE FOR A FREAKING CARPET PATTERN, I will be sure to never purchase anything from them.

Oh, and I also think they are stupid-heads for going legal on something like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 12:51pm

The shocking thing
The shocking thing is that Couristan is willing to publicly acknowledge that they created that hideous design in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 23 Sep 2013 @ 12:52pm

Re:
Seriously - I think that is what it would look like it PacMan vommitted after a decent score.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 12:53pm

Re:
Damn it Ninja. Now I'm reading the article and seeing 'Courtesan' too! (And imagining Japanese courtesans wearing kimonos with that carpet pattern on the fabric.)

In all seriousness though, it looks like Courtesan's C&D is perfectly justified. There's probably a trademark on that specific design that they need to enforce, especially if Mr. Krix is using it commercially, instead of just for personal use, like he did by selling the fabric with said design without the company's permission.

Stupid? Yes, but that's the messed up world of IP law for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 12:58pm

Re: The shocking thing
Eh, it's not that bad. Seems par for the course as far as hotel carpet designs are concerned. Kinda looks like something you might hallucinate after ingesting a large amount of LSD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
davnel, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:06pm

OK, I agree the carpet could have been perhaps a little more sedate, I mean REALLY! However you have to admit those costumes are absolutely spectacular and blend in pretty well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:11pm

Grabbing some popcorn...
This should be good! you can make/wear clothing of any iconic appearance... just so long as you do not affix any registered items such as logo's or trademarks.

This carpet company will get "stomped" all over if they press the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:13pm

To prevent even worse stupidity!
Answer to "tell me in what strange, stupid world it makes even a semblance of sense for Couristan to go legal on a dude selling outfits."

Yes, Timmy, in YOUR strange, stupid world is must make a semblance of sense, 'cause you're the one went with this trivial topic, NOT ME.

And now we all know what FINE carpet Couristan makes! FREE advertising! 'Cause the type of people who buy prestigious carpet will see this as a positive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re:
There's probably a trademark on that specific design that they need to enforce

1) You never NEED to enforce a trademark - they could have licensed this or ignored it without ill effect
2) Unless they also have a line of clothing that happens to have this particularly horrible pattern, the markets do not overlap and it is unlikely that they have a trademark claim at all
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:20pm

Re: To prevent even worse stupidity!
@out_of_the_poo...

Not to feed any trolls, but "free advertising" can be said of any bit of news that hits the feeds. Maybe you should cry over something more important... like spilled milk or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:21pm

Re: To prevent even worse stupidity!
Cause the type of people who buy prestigious carpet will see this as a positive

The type of people who buy prestigious carpet will, in fact, throw up when they look at that pattern.

I honestly cannot see how this could go well for Couristan.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SolkeshNaranek (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:21pm

Normally I too would laugh at something as ridiculous as this cease and desist order.

However, as previously pointed out my many others here, that carpet pattern need to disappear. In that vein of thought, I say thank you to the carpet company for their attempt at stopping the reproduction of that horrible pattern and potentially saving the eyesight of hundreds (if not thousands) of good folk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:24pm

Note to self, do not buy carpet from that company of carpet baggers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:25pm

Re:
Come now, Courtesans have much more sense and empathy that those company bosses, its essential to their trade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:31pm

Re:
Completely my thoughts as well.

Gawd that's an ugly carpet. By eyes are bleeding and I think the guy in the next cubicle is having an epilectic fit after looking over my shoulder at that pic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew Norton (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:42pm

I almost tripped over them at least once (they were hard to see, plus *people*. And most of the weekend, I was in pain, having ruptured my knee during one of the panels I hosted Friday night (TPB-AFK showing, with Q+A, ISPs and 6 strikes, and Pseudonym rights)

Quick note though, The Marriot-Marquis is not 'the host hotel', it's 'one of the host hotels'. It's such a big event, that it takes up five (The Marriott, the hyatt, the Hilton, the Sheraton and the Westin) and the Americas Mart was added as a 6th host building this year.

That said, since I was made aware of this last week, I've been doing some digging, and it may be that the company doesn't own the pattern at all. More info when I get it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:46pm

Re: To prevent even worse stupidity!
How would a company litigating its trademarks be seen as a positive to the customer? How does the end customer benefit? Why would they even care?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oblate (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 1:53pm

I go to conventions a few times a year, often with committee meetings held in rooms with carpet equivalently awful to that in the article. As much as I would have loved to be able to disappear at some of those meetings, never once have I thought of actually dressing like the carpet- until now. Or instead of disappearing, maybe I could just lay low (floor level) until I'm needed for a motion or a vote...

My next committee meeting just got a lot more interesting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:01pm

They should've dressed up as Barbara Streisand instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:02pm

Re:
I would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:12pm

It doesn't appear identical... is there really a legit claim?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: Re:
2) Trademark seems completely out of the question if the object of the infringement is the clothes, so we are most likely talking copyright. The defense of those aggressively enforcing copyright is their future possibility to license their designs for fees. In this case I will assume that the carpet manufacturer is banking on some extreme changes in peoples perception of carpets in the far end of the copyright period. Something as common as the patterns of that carpet should not attract much attention today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:38pm

Everyone infringes on something in someones eyes. This is a sign of an unjust system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:38pm

Easy
When I first saw these pics, I didn't realize they were using the exact carpet pattern. Which means the fix is to do a *similar* pattern, which might work even better given the contours of a human body vs. a flat surface.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:42pm

Re:
Even if it's exact, there's never been anything like that in fashion. I would find it hard to believe there is any sort of claim here. That doesn't mean that a carpet company can't ruin cosplayers lives for a couple years though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 23 Sep 2013 @ 2:43pm

Re: Re:
Trademark on a carpet pattern. You better hang out at different sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 3:20pm

The carpet company is so greedy, they can't stand to watch someone else make any money. The carpet company want's their cut of somebody else's idea, just like the MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymouse, 23 Sep 2013 @ 3:24pm

Re:
If the carpet company had taken this to court the courts would have thrown it out as stupid. Sadly it would probably cost too much to defend so money talks in the american justice system yet again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drew, 23 Sep 2013 @ 3:24pm

Smart move!
Camouflaged carpet divers can be very dangerous.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 3:36pm

I don't have a problem with this enforcement. If they had just worn the suits they made, there wouldn't have been any issue. The problems started when they began selling fabric with the pattern.

Make suits and wear them as cosplay? Awesome example of personal use. Making a fabric that is a copy of someone else's design and then selling it? That's profiting from someone else's work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 4:09pm

Re: The shocking thing
As an attendee of way too many hotel-based conferences, I can say that I've seen that pattern many times. It appears to be popular among large conference-hosting hotels. I have no idea why. Perhaps to distract you from the fact that you're stuck in a hotel at a boring conference all day, and instead wondering who would buy such a rug.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 5:16pm

Re: Re: Re:
I never said that I liked the idea, just that it might be the case.

Though on review, this does appear to be more a copyright issue instead of trademark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 5:22pm

Re: Re:
NO trademark concern here....as a carpet manufacturer is unlikely to have a clothing trdaemark, and more importantly, the trademark would already be considered generic. Its a basic mosaic pattern. I don't see any general mosaic pattern and associate it with a specific company. A similar mosaic design wouldn't make me think that Cortesan made the carpet....Because no one knows who the fuck they are.

Also, as Ive noted in the past, the use it or lose it doctrine is way overblown in the market. But in this case, the company's trademark would have been needed to be enforced in other way, ensuring people knew that this carpet was theirs (before infringement).

On the copyright side, general mosaics are easy to establish non-dirivative and/or fair use on. here it is quite clear that the fabric is in fact dirivative of the carpet, so Fair use must be our key. The original work can be considered factual, and despite him 'selling' the fabric, its a clear non-commercial use, as the distribution of fabric is a hobby, not a business. The fabric uses much of the actual design, but that is mitigated by the fact that, if it was unconnected to the carpet, the design is so highly transformative it is unlikely to be recognized. The shapes needed to be warbed and scaled to fit presepective. This design does not replace the need for a carpet with this design. It doesn't impact that market at all. This is highly indicative of Fair Use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 5:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but failure to actively use a registered trademark or enforce it when there's major infringement after a certain period of time may risk that trademark getting removed on the grounds of non-use (however, another party has to apply for this removal from the register for this to happen).

However, as the AC mentioned above, it's more likely a copyright issue instead of trademark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 5:33pm

Re: To prevent even worse stupidity!
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 5:35pm

Re:
Haha! Guilty. I just had to go back and check it *wasn't* courtesan.

Henceforth, Couristan shall be known as "Courtesan the D-Bag Carpet Company"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 6:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
While technically correct, you ignore some of the reasons this is angering, as well as several details commonly ignored to justify the 'use it or lose it' doctrine of Trademarks.

1) Establishing a licence to use a trademark also protects that trademark, and can be approached far more civilly. In this case the hobby production of a clothing fabric which doesn't directly conform to the specific layout of a carpet that the company doesn't even display on its homepage (so really hard to have a design trademark)? Screams for a more cautious hand.

2) Given the narrowness of trademark, infringement is often claimed where none exists. Common examples:
Using the name Coke or Coca-Cola when discussing the actual Coca-Cola product.

Using the brand and model name of a lamp when giving a bad review

Using the name of your competitor when making a factual comparison.

These are almost never infringing as trademark doesn't prevent the use of the word, only the use of the word in a manner designed or likely to confuse customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 6:59pm

Re: Re: The shocking thing
Here's a New Yorker story about it, and a news article. They're thought to keep people awake, to hide stains, and in casinos, to keep people looking up (at the gambling tables/machines). Las Vegas is known for particularly garish carpets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 7:03pm

Re:
A) Copyright protection is at a very low ability for this carpet. see my post above on the four factor test. remember, profit motive does not eliminate far use B) they might not even own the design. C)its a pretty generic mosaic design even if they do. How is such an infinitely reproducible design generic?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 7:35pm

Re: Re:
Maybe the wallpaper people will be less litigious then the carpet manufacturers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Re: The shocking thing
That might be why this is going on. The carpet company is pissed that someone's drawing attention to something specifically designed not to be looked at.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 23 Sep 2013 @ 7:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought the "Use it or lose it" doctrine only came in when the trademark is at risk of becoming generic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lurker Keith, 23 Sep 2013 @ 9:41pm

Re: Re: Re:
There's something you left out.

He had to use that pattern for the intended purpose: to blend into that carpet. He couldn't have done it any other way. I'm pretty sure that's also something that's looked at.

Sorry it's been a while since I last commented. Been busy playing NSA the game... uh, I mean Splinter Cell: Blacklist. It actually has a network set up similar to the NSA spying on everyone, connected to the SMI (forgot what that stands for, but it's what you get mission briefings from): it gathers & analyzes data from everything it's plugged into.

Next month (or possibly early November, I'll be getting NSA the game II, aka .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lurker Keith, 23 Sep 2013 @ 9:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure how that got cut off. I know I typed it. @_@

...NSA the game II, aka Watch_Dogs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 10:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The design superimposed on a fabric is copyrightable, whereas the style of the dress (even an expensive Parisian couturier's design) in which the fabric is used is not - no matter how original, ornamental, or nonessential for function that design may be. 1 M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright � 2.08[H] (1979)."

Sure they have the copyright. But rather than send a cease and desist, why werem't the carpet company's lawyers smart enough to suggest they could simply contact the cosplayer and offer to license the fabric in return for a percentage of profits? I just don't see the benefit. If the cosplayer is ordered to cease and desist, the cosplayer and his friends get miffed and hate the venue for their shitty carpet, the carpet company gets negative publicity, and gets no profit nor promise of future profits, from the activities of the cosplayer.

FYI specific info on licensing fabrics.
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/CopyrightLaw/LicensedFabric.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2013 @ 11:13pm

Re:
Who cares if they're "profiting from someone else's work?" The carpet company is not selling carpet clothing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2013 @ 1:22am

Re: To prevent even worse stupidity!
This wouldn't prevent shit, let alone "even worse stupidity".

Exhibit: You. There, even worse stupidity, and it's not even prevented!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2013 @ 1:23am

Re:
Yeah, I mean it's not like Disney copy someone else's design and sells it or anything...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolfy, 24 Sep 2013 @ 3:27am

I'd have told 'em, "Go pound sand." The camo is nothing but some lines and background color in a similarcolor and line width. Not even close to the horrible pattern design of the carpet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pat, 24 Sep 2013 @ 6:28am

Makes me wonder...
Really makes me wonder, at what point, exactly, in the corporate ladder does a person completely lose all common sense and decides to replace it entirely with a team of lawyers?

Further more, one would also have to ask in what college class do medical student get to practice their surgical skills by lobotomizing the part of the brain responsible for common sense on all Law students...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shon Gale (profile), 24 Sep 2013 @ 6:38am

Couristan accomplished one thing. They lost lot's of future customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 24 Sep 2013 @ 6:39am

Re: Re:
If I suggest that a little courtesy on Krix's part would have prevented Couristan from going legal, is that a step too far?

I've seen things I like online and asked the person who created or uploaded the image, and have always been told I could use them, even though it was for an ad-supported website. All they wanted in return was a link to their website and a bit of credit.

It only takes a moment to send an email or make a call.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 24 Sep 2013 @ 6:42am

Re: Re: Re:
It's not about the legality or what the rights or wrongs are; in a litigious society, it's worth considering covering your ass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ahow628 (profile), 24 Sep 2013 @ 6:43am

Missed opportunity here
Would have loved to see the carpet company release or do a mock-up of a new pattern that is just covered with humans in regular clothing. Or maybe naked would work too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 24 Sep 2013 @ 7:49am

Re: Re: Re:
If I suggest that a little courtesy on Krix's part would have prevented Couristan from going legal, is that a step too far?

I might - might - have asked the hotel if it was OK, but it would not have even crossed my mind to try to contact the carpet manufacturer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 24 Sep 2013 @ 8:10am

Re:
Couristan accomplished one thing. They lost lot's of future customers.

Very unlikely. Their customers (hotels) are not going to care if they make legal threats to random convention goers, as long as they leave the hotels out of it. And if they sell to individuals, well hardly any of them would have even heard about this, let alone give a hoot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Logan, 24 Sep 2013 @ 8:33am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They could have simply licensed him to use the design for free in the context of making these outfits. But really, his design is only similar to theirs. Look at his shapes, he has smaller triangles and irregular shapes. He also has some sort of cross hatching in the blue section that isn't there. The carpet company is just being overly litigious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Sep 2013 @ 5:49pm

Re:
Holy shit! Carpet diving ninjas!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pragmatic, 25 Sep 2013 @ 6:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the problem. We live in a society where "Intellectual Property" is a religion and people are using litigation as a business model. Until we knock that unholy edifice over, we have to cover ourselves as best we can, expecting that any douchebaggery that can take place, will take place, and with the worst possible consequences, just because they can. And because OOTB ain't the only douchebag in the pack.

People who believe they have property rights over eye-watering (or other) patterns will attempt to enforce them and, as Mike has pointed out on many occasions, the biggest war chest decides the winner; it's often easier and cheaper to settle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]