Hey IMAX: IMAX Can't Threaten People With Trademark Infringement For Saying IMAX. IMAX. IMAX.
from the imax-imax-imax-imax dept
Over the years, we've certainly seen plenty of ridiculous attempts to overclaim trademark rights, often for the sake of censorship. While it's not always the case, generally speaking, it's smaller, less sophisticated companies and trademark holders who do this. Larger companies do have a habit of trademark bullying on the margins, but they tend to know better than to send absolutely insane trademark threats just because someone mentions their brand. Apparently, IMAX is an exception to that general rule. IMAX apparently believes that merely mentioning IMAX without a license is infringing on its trademark. Even if you're a media company writing about a product and you interview someone who says something nice about IMAX. IMAX is wrong. Also: IMAX.You see, our friends over at Ars Technica recently wrote a review of the SteamVR offering, and it included a quote from a game designer, Denny Unger, who was talking about how cool SteamVR is and said: "It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house.' It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup." That quote also did become a part of the headline to the story, which appears to be what tipped off IMAX's elite crack squad of trademark censors, who proceeded to send Ars Technica this ridiculous letter which states:
IMAX Corporation has been the owner of the federally registered trademark in the United States and Canada since 1970. Any unauthorized use of our trademark is expressly forbidden.Ars Technica's response to this ridiculous threat is perfect. It points out, first of all, that the quote mentioning IMAX is actually praising IMAX:
We believe that your incorrect reference to IMAX when describing this product is misleading to readers as we do not believe that it is possible for a virtual reality system to replicate the experience of an IMAX theatre, which is provided by cutting edge projection and sound technology on screens up to 35.72 metres. We request that all future articles regarding this "room-scale" virtual reality system make no reference to our registered trademark.
In other words—Unger thinks SteamVR is awesome, and to express its awesomeness, he compared it to IMAX, another thing he clearly thinks is awesome.But then explains some rather basic things about trademark law that you would think a company the size of IMAX would already know.
First of all, this isn't a story about IMAX, and it contains just one (nice!) reference to IMAX. The statement wasn't Ars' speech at all, but one that an Ars writer chose out of many possible interview quotes. But that's all a bit of an aside, because the important point is that despite Ruby's fantastical interpretation of what a trademark means, we're actually allowed to say whatever we want about IMAX. I can say IMAX screens look like SteamVR, or that they look like my 47" Vizio TV, or that they remind me of purple bunnies. We can review IMAX directly, we can compare it to other products, we can love 'em, we can hate 'em—all without their permission.And, you know what, I don't think enough people have compared IMAX to purple bunnies.
The standard in trademark law is to determine whether there's infringement by detecting whether there would be a "likelihood of confusion" between two products. But again, we're very far away from that test here. That standard would only apply if we were selling movie tickets; there are no consumers who confuse reading an article about virtual reality with going to the movies.
Ars Technica's Joe Mullin also points to our own article about how, if anyone is messing with IMAX's trademark, it's IMAX itself, which for years now has been installing much smaller screens but still calling them IMAX, confusing lots and lots of people.
IMAX.
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: ars technica, imax, journalism, trademark
Companies: imax
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
IMAX?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMAX?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The diagram itself is a giveaway: the wider aspect ratio of the Empire 25 screen---which looks to be in the 16:9 neighborhood---is almost certainly for a digital format projector. Real, 70mm IMAX is much narrower, nearly 4:3.
(At this point I'd be remiss to not give a shout out to my local IMAX theater for keeping their 70mm projectors around, and rolling them out for certain films when they can get prints in. Thanks, Celebration Cinema!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what you're saying is..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what you're saying is..
As a result, I no longer assume that IMAX really means IMAX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what you're saying is..
The only IMAX related thing to ever blow my mind was a 3D tech demo back in 2001, which used active LCD shutter glasses rather than todays crappy polarized sunglasses. The latter is partly why I don't go to the theater anymore.
Unlike polarized lenses, the active version didn't mess with the brightness and colors, nor cause any eye strain. The 3D aspect was clear as day and so in your face that it made you jump back.
I'm so looking forward to VR just to relive that awesome experience again. Screw theaters, including IMAX. I'm done with them for good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The IMAX Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMAX
IMAX.
IMAX.IMAX.IMAX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMAX
IMAX!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wouldn't that make the people who have the trademark on purple bunnies mad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
oh. wait...
http://www.confectionerynews.com/Manufacturers/Cadbury-s-purple-reign-over-UK-court-blocks-co lor-trademark-appeal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Super Bowl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Super Bowl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Super Bowl
It all makes perfect sense now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Super Bowl
Seeing a vision of brown floaties swirilling down the drain seems fitting given all the crap the super bowl people have thrown around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe you mean trademark rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMAX SUCKS! IMAX SUCKS! IMAX SUCKS! IMAX SUCKS! IMAX SUCKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would you adress a letter asking permission to use the term?
While going through that vicious circle, one would never come to the point of actually going to ..er.. the cinema.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMAX apologizes to Ars for its trademark retraction demand
That didn't take long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMAX apologizes to Ars for its trademark retraction demand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IMAX apologizes to Ars for its trademark retraction demand
1) Accuse someone of infringement.
2) Watch the accusation hit the tech news sites and make the company look bad.
3) Issue an apology for something they shouldn't have done in the first place in an attempt to save face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/imax-apologizes-to-ars-for-its-trademark-retraction- demand/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt: you know about trademark, you should also no not to infringe copyright
So it's a bit ironic that you chose to illustrate the article with a graphic showing relative IMAX screen sizes that you took without permission or attribution from my Web site, LFexaminer.com. Here's the page on which it first appeared: http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm.
This is the second time you've used it without permission.
It's okay, I'm not calling my lawyers. This image is easily the most frequently lifted item on my site. I'm gratified people find it useful.
But I wouldn't mind if you include the following credit in future: First published in LF Examiner, October 2008, (c) 2008 by Cinergetics, LLC. www.LFexaminer.com.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
--James Hyder
Editor/Publisher, LF Examiner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt: you know about trademark, you should also no not to infringe copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt: you know about trademark, you should also no not to infringe copyright
I own the copyright to "k" and the letter "w" as well as the number "2" as in 01
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt: you know about trademark, you should also no not to infringe copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt: you know about trademark, you should also no not to infringe copyright
Again, I don't have a big problem with their using it, but it's important that people understand the facts about copyright, and not think, as you apparently do, that there are criteria, like a supposed lack of creativity, that excuse infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt: you know about trademark, you should also no not to infringe copyright
Don't you think they have a strong fair use claim? That would make the use not ironic at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honestly, this shit is just getting RIDICULOUS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IMAX confused?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obvious, but still kinda funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]