Gay Party Company Goes After Another Gay Party Organizer Over Generic 'Gay Days' Trademark

from the IP-over-solidarity dept

Mon, Mar 2nd 2015 9:01pm — Timothy Geigner

Trademarks on generic terms and phrases make for the silliest, and often the strangest, battles. In particular, I find it detestable when companies that are serving small, niche groups of people who have every reason to band together in solidarity, instead bicker unnecessarily over even the most common kinds of language. This was the case when comic conventions went to battle over the now generic term "comic-con." It's been the case when game-makers have gone after other game makers over a phrase as generic as "would you rather."

And now, for reasons I can't particularly fathom, a company out of Florida called Gay Days Inc. has forced a gay pride festival in Southern California to change its name from "Gay Days" because apparently the LGBT community doesn't have bigger fish to fry besides bickering over insanely generic trademarked terms.

Organizers for the festival over Easter weekend changed the name from Cathedral City Gay Days to Cathedral City LGBT Days after a Florida company notified the city about a trademark it owns on the phrase "gay days."

Gay Days Inc., the company behind gay parties in Orlando, Las Vegas and Orlando, said in a Jan. 12 email from company President Chris Alexander-Manley it would take all necessary steps to protect the trademark "including, but not limited to, the institution of formal legal proceedings."

On the one hand, I suppose it's kind of a nice symbolic moment in the progression this country has undergone in how we look at the civil rights of the LGBT community that rather than focusing on solidarity, there are court fights over "gay days." On the other hand: what the shit? How does the USPTO even grant a mark on such a generic term, one that, by the way, has been in use long before Gay Days Inc. used it or was granted the trademark? Cathedral City, a wonderfully progressive city, appears to be asking the same questions.

The switch happened well before a major marketing push for the April 3-5 event got underway, said Chris Parman, spokesman and events manager for Cathedral City, a city that neighbors gay-friendly Palm Springs in California's Coachella Valley. The festival is set to include a bar hop, film screenings in downtown Cathedral City, a Saturday night disco party and Easter egg hunt on Sunday morning. It's taking place at the same time as the Dinah Shore Weekend in Palm Springs.

"To me the name ('gay days') is so generic. I don't see how on Earth anyone could have that be a trademarked phrase," Parman said. "It's no different than 'pride parade,' or 'pride' or 'gay pride.' I think if you look, all of them have tried to be trademarked at some point."

But, hey, this is America, after all. The land of the free to lock up language and use it against the very people who share your own interests unnecessarily. Progress of a kind, I suppose.

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: gay days, trademark
Companies: gay days

26 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:09pm

Speaking of which, I'm waiting for certain professional American football teams to start 'going legal' over unauthorized use of their trademarked terms such as "bears" and "packers" ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 3 Mar 2015 @ 7:44am
  
  Re:
  Or how about "pigskin"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Mar 2015 @ 10:32pm

Oh my Gawd! That's so gay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:15pm
  
  Re:
  o_O
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 1:40am
  
  Re:
  Nice to see you don't give a crap about progress and decided to use gay in it's slur form. Good job douchebro.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - art guerrilla (profile), 3 Mar 2015 @ 4:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    i don't know the posters intent (which is THE HEART of the misguided idiocy behind 'hate' laws), but it appeared to be a lame-ish joke... no harm, no foul, play on...
    
    but, the larger point is: it is 'okay' to slur a slur-er, and *THAT* is -you know- allowable slurring ? ? ?
    
    you need to think that through, sparky: you are being just as much a 'hater' as your adversary, AND a hypocrite to boot...
    
    ('oh, but my hate is a good, clean, righteous hate...' sure it is...)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 5:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    I would think more people will come down on gays and lesbians since they are bigots.
    
    To claim that you can only fall in love with your own kind (whether skin color, gender, etc...) is the definition of being a bigot.
    
    Gays are no longer the fringe group they once were. Welcome to being seen as what you are. Bigots who claim they only love their own kind. Black, White, Male, Female, Red hair, or Blonde, we are born this way with no say in it and to act as if it is ok to only like "your own kind" is the definition of being a bigot.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, in your opinion, everyone should be bisexual.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A person can choose between a hell of a lot more than just two types of sexuality (even not counting the several sexuality types that are slightly to severely illegal). So apparently, by that logic, anyone less than an omnisexual is a "bigot" to some degree ... or something like that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Mar 2015 @ 11:37pm

"The company has been planning "gay days" events for 25 years and has held the trademark for around seven years, he said. Gay Days Anaheim predates the trademark so is allowed to use the name without a license, he said."

Filing Date May 18, 2011
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition January 10, 2012
Registration Number 4117601
Registration Date March 27, 2012

2012 + 7 = 2019
Did I fall into a coma?

FIRST USE: 19970403. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19970403

I wish I could be shocked by this, but IP matters are no longer shocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 12:15am

just another case of petty greed by someone that most likely is exploiting the community they represent for personal gain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 3 Mar 2015 @ 1:53am

As a gay man I instantly know what Gay Days is. It is also important for small disadvantaged communities to maintain the sources of income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 5:21am

Isnt only liking your own kind being a bigot?
I still dont understand how claiming to only like your "own kind" isnt bigotry.

Personally, I have much more respect for bi-sexuals than gays.

Oh well. Now that it is OK to claim you can only fall in love with people who are your own gender, the next thing will be to say it is ok to claim you can only fall in love with people who are your own skin color.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 6:07am
  
  Re: Isnt only liking your own kind being a bigot?
  This post is bait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 6:25am
  
  Re: Isnt only liking your own kind being a bigot?
  It's not "bigotry" -- it's rational disease prevention. The vast majority of women who get AIDS fall into the "Kelly Preston" category:
  
  http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/women/facts/index.html?s_cid=fb-dhap-nwghad-002
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 6:35am
  
  Re: Isnt only liking your own kind being a bigot?
  It's not "bigotry" -- it's rational disease prevention.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just Another Anonymous Troll, 3 Mar 2015 @ 8:25am
  
  Re: Isnt only liking your own kind being a bigot?
  Those bigoted heterosexuals, refusing to fall in love with anyone of their own gender!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 3 Mar 2015 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: Isnt only liking your own kind being a bigot?
  "I still dont understand how claiming to only like your "own kind" isnt bigotry."
  
  Bigotry is when you think that a "type" of person is somehow lesser or when you believe that that a "type" of person is somehow less deserving.
  
  Having a personal preference for a particular "type" of person to have a relationship with is no more bigotry than preferring a certain type of food.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 6:32am

Techdirt seriously needs to review its "Comment Held for Moderation" domain blacklist. Posting a link to CDC.gov [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] should not automatically trigger a ban.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2015 @ 6:38am
  
  Re:
  cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/women/facts/index.html?s_cid=fb-dhap-nwghad-002
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artiewhitefox, 3 Mar 2015 @ 10:39am

Come on guys. Don't bicker over small things. This world will pass away. All that is here is vanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TROY, 3 Mar 2015 @ 2:00pm

gay
this article is kinda gay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Mar 2015 @ 2:20pm
  
  Re: gay
  I thought after I showed up it got supergay.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 4 Mar 2015 @ 2:51pm

Uh oh, Disney's not gonna like this
They're going to have to either ban the annual Gay Day or get the organisers to change its name. :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheMan (profile), 17 Aug 2015 @ 8:41pm

Wow that's confusing... I mean, it's simply not ok to let anyone own such trademark. Can you really trademark such a generic phrase? Imagine someone owned th phrase Gay Porn ??? I can already see the court fights between all the best gay porn sites like ManHub, http://mygaysites.com and PornHub. Then we would need new vocabulary or even new language just because of the trademarks rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jimmy (profile), 27 Nov 2015 @ 4:16pm

Trademarking phrases is nothing new: The most famous case is sports announcer Michael Buffer, who currently makes more money from his phrase "Let's get ready to rumble" than he does from actually announcing boxers and letting them know that there might be rumbling. He's reportedly made $400 million by licensing his phrase to movies, commercials, video games and such. Gay Porn or Empire would be an interesting trademark case between Gay DVD Empire and http://gaypornempire.com But here's where it gets dumb: Dave Hester from A&E's reality show Storage Wars not only has a trademark on the word "YUUUP!" but is actually involved in a bitter legal battle over it with rapper Trey Songz, who claims that he's been yupping people since at least 2009. Source: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/legal-battle-who-gets-say-261627?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm _medium=twitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]