US Military Looking To Trademark Everything
from the because...-money dept
As we've noted plenty of times in the past, works produced by the federal government are not subject to copyright. However, they are (almost inexplicably) subject to both patent and trademark protection, where those things apply. A little while back, Jim Gourley over at Foreign Policy looked into how the Pentagon has gone trademark slap happy over the last five years or so (the headline of the article falsely implies that it has also gone copyright happy, despite barely mentioning copyright, and in the one spot it does, totally confusing copyright and trademarks).The program began in 2007 when the Defense Department issued a directive calling for the component services to establish a branding and trademark licensing office, which would answer to the DOD level through a separate office working for the undersecretary of defense for public affairs. Holding to its tradition of being first in the fight, the Marines were the most aggressive in the early going. In 2009, they began contacting large-scale print-on-demand t-shirt suppliers Zazzle and CafePress. It immediately shut down several small online retailers of military-themed hats and shirts. It even came up with rules applying to USMC-themed stuff sold on Etsy.It does note that the military seems to realize that going after small retailers who are selling things face-to-face isn't wise, because "they're probably engaging in healthy patriotism." But, anyone else may be facing a bill from the Defense Department -- an organization that probably has the world's largest budget already. This should raise serious questions about why the US government should be granted trademarks in the first place. Yes, you could argue that the Defense Department doesn't want "shoddy" military merchandise out there, but is that really something the government needs to be concerned about? The US government isn't supposed to be a commercial enterprise. It could easily highlight and focus on "official" military gear to distinguish it from unofficial gear, without having to show up and force everyone else selling military-themed t-shirts that they need to kick back an extra "licensing" fee on top of any taxes they already have to pay.
The other services quickly caught up. Between 2007 and 2011, sales of officially-licensed U.S. Army merchandise increased from $5 million to $50 million
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: dod, pentagon, trademark
Companies: cafepress, zazzle
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Motherfucking Eagles™
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so-o-o-o, i'm wondering if they go after the ten zillion military-themed video games, or is that simply good recruiting practice, so they'll ignore that ? ? ?
(and isn't that problematic: IF you go after one cohort for trademark traducing, don't you have to go after them all ?)
[ 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 ]
Patents too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patents too...
But it does keep the Corporate military contractors happy.
[ 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: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Left .. left .. left right left
yer pants r baggy, yer boots r tight
yer balls r swinin' left to right ...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol - wtf, as opposed to unhealthy patriotism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hobby industry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hobby industry
A decision was made by some manufacturers to secure trademarks for the names, a perfectly legitimate endeavor since they manufactured the aircraft bearing those names. Contracts with model makers were modest, with the only meaningful limitations being a modest royalty that was used in many, if not most instances, for charitable purposes, cooperation with the model makers to make their products as realistic and up to date as possible, etc. There was, however, a more compelling reason. Aircraft manufacturers from foreign countries are typically solicited and joint ventures formed to secure sales contracts in those foreign countries. Being "stockholder stewards", it is not at all unusual for foreign manufacturers to begin playing fast and loose with the product names for purposes far transcending the joint venture arrangements. It is here where a trademark can be beneficial to attempt curtailing such misuses.
BTW, when trademarks of this type were first applied for, the USAF went ballistic, one General even calling Lockheed Martin's CEO trying to cut him a new one. Fortunately, logic prevailed once it understood the motivations underlying why such trademarks were being secured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what the hell?
Commercial enterprise = "An enterprise connected with commerce.
The US Government, or any Government for that matter IS THE ULTIMATE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE!
They provide a service, and they get paid to provide that service, if it is not 'commercial' what the hell is it?
The population under that Government is the 'customers' and the Government is "the organization".
It fixes prices (taxes) it provides goods and services for those fees.
If a Government is not supposed to be a commercial enterprise, what the hell is it supposed to be ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"and they get paid to provide that service"
Dude... the government 'takes' they do not 'get paid'. Neither is government an enterprise and neither is it commercial.
I have a choice to shop and Best Buy, but I do not have a choice to shop at USA Gov. I suppose next you will say that Slavery was an enterprise too? The fixed price (taxes) just happened to be the very flesh on their bones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.understandingslavery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=373& amp;Itemid=236
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I usually hate & berate people who fall victim to bastardizing words of the English language auto assigning them values of positive or negative towards them. I deserve the bitchslapping this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless you wish to fall back on TD tradition and redefine the meaning of words that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
TD doesn't do that, Darryl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
but you can find the many examples yourself, with little effort, (but some understanding, and a dictionary).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Careful now, you don't want a SWAT team showing up at your house with a no-knock warrant for the crime of logic infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By "HOLDING FOR MODERATION" FOREVER..... CENSORSHIP.
If you have been told by Masnick he does not censor posts, and I prove beyond doubt that he does, would you then accept that if Masnick can lie about something that important (TO YOU), that he is capable of lying about anything else as well? QED.
Just say the word and I will provide that proof, but I will do it on youtube, for ALL TO SEE..
Do you accept my challenge?
Would you accept that if he does censor, would you also accept he does like to redefine the meaning of words, (I don't need a youtube clip to prove that though).
So just say the word, and I will publicly post prove positive that Masnick lies about this important and fundamental issue.
I am sure you would like to know the truth, and if what you are told on TD is also the truth.
The truth will set you free..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Building and maintaining this infrastructure and the system of commerce that relies on it, takes effect (enterprise) it also takes and makes commerce, it enables commerce and it provides commerce.
Governments are by definition and design MEANT to be commercial enterprises, if they are not, then what are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The government is not engaged in the sale/transfer/etc. of good to the public. Thus, if fails to meet necessary condition that the mark be used to distinguish its goods and services in the public marketplace.
No, the federal government does admittedly secure some trademarks, but the basis for such marks is seriously flawed and the trademarks likely invalid.
As for lines of clothing and other certifications, that may very well "fly", but as a matter of policy I happen to believe it is a waste of taxpayer resources. Of course, one way to drive this home to the military services that may wish to pursue such a policy is that they get to pay the freight out of their budgets for assigning people to do the necessary grunt work, but that every $ they may collect must be turned over immediately to the US Treasure. It may not be added to the agencies' respective budgets because that would represent an illegal augmentation of appropriated funds, a most definite and serious no-no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The government is not engaged in the sale/transfer/etc. of good to the public. Thus, if fails to meet necessary condition that the mark be used to distinguish its goods and services in the public marketplace."
we did not say that, I said it was a commercial enterprise, in opposition to Masnick saying
"The US government isn't supposed to be a commercial enterprise."
The definition of a commercial enterprise is not "sale/transfer/ect" or goods.
An enterprise as already defined is anything that takes effort, and "commerce" means "a whole system of an economy that constitutes an environment for business".
Government takes effort and is a system of an economy that constitutes an environment for business".
As for your statement it is also incorrect, the Government builds roads, bridges and other infrastructure to enable business and commerce that would constitute "transfer/etc" in your definition.
Again, no one has stated IF Governments are not commercial enterprises then what are they?
[ 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 ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ 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 ]
public, non profit service by The People and for The People?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But you are right it is a service and a paid for service, it is not profit, even to the point of charging you LESS then the cost of the services provided, you get lower taxes but the same service and the Government has to borrow money to pay for those services, being profitable is not the definition of a commercial enterprise, nor is making profit.
But certainly Governments do enterprise to create commerce and therefore are by definition a commercial enterprise, non-profit, for or against the public makes no difference it is what it is, and not what Masnick wants you to think.
What Masnick said was:
The US government isn't supposed to be a commercial enterprise. I find that statement to be well, wrong. Masnick should not be so careless, if he can deceive about this what else?
IF the US Government is not supposed to be a commercial enterprise, again, what the hell is it supposed to be?
Or is his definition of a commercial enterprise somehow different to this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
Just because you don't like google, doesn't mean you can't do a search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Budget
Just remember one thing, the DOJ has a way larger budget...than the DoD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Budget
Man, I have got to get the brand of crack you're smoking.
Last year, the DoD spending was $672.9 billion dollars and the DoJ was less than 5.5% of that, at $36.5 billion, which includes the attorneys, a bunch of LEOs like the FBI, and the federal prison system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Sue them all and let God sort them out"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Federal copyright
BTW, I happen to like government contractors acquiring copyright for works created under government contracts, but for two unique reasons. First, the absolute worst international competitor of US contractors is the USG itself. It is not at all unusual for it to tell a foreign government that they should ignore the private sector company and simply buy from the USG. Another reason is that other companies, both in the US and internationally, are forever in the mode of trying to steal the business of the original developer/manufacturer by leaving no stone unturned to finagle copies of all the critical manufacturing and follow-on support documents that they will use to bamboozle a procurement agency into believing that they can do the work on the cheap. When you are the developer/manufacturer, and contract continuation is critical in order to retain critical technical personnel, what these bozos say they can do (actually, they cannot) is a constant source of irritation that takes time away from doing silly things like product improvement, cost reduction, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But there's no way that's happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The feds
http://www.abodia.com/2/United-States-is-a-corporation.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This gets to the heart of the Trademark issue. Since when does the military sell its equipment and clothing? I know there are Army/Navy stores, but SFAIK, they aren't actually supplied by the military.
So on what grounds do they claim trademark rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]