Putin's Internet Trolls Mercilessly Smear Finnish Reporter Simply For Pointing Them Out

Sony's New Emoji Animated Movie At Trademark Odds With Guy Who Trademarked Emojis

from the sad-face dept

Fri, Jun 3rd 2016 6:18pm — Timothy Geigner

It probably goes without saying that the word "emoji" is now a full member of the popular lexicon. So popular, in fact, that Sony is apparently going to release an animated film called The Emoji Movie, which will follow the "lives" of a bunch of emojis, for reasons I cannot possibly fathom. But, as the release of the film is currently in the works, Sony is also apparently preparing to fend off a trademark claim from Marco Husges, a game developer and emoji creator.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, however, the studio may also be preparing for a legal battle as one former game developer says he owns the merchandising trademarks for more than 3,000 emoji.

Marco Husges, who worked on the MMO Shadowbane, and on Starbreeze Studios'Enclave, filed for commercial trademarks of the word "emoji" back in 2013. As such, Husges doesn't own the rights to the emoji images people use on their iPhones (which are trademarked to Apple) or Android devices (trademarked to Google), but he does own the rights to his own designs. He also owns the rights to certain words, like "emojitown" and "emojiworld."

Now, were Sony to be insane enough to pilfer unique creatively designed emojis and simply use them in its film, Husges would appear to have a straightforward copyright and/or trademark claim. But there's almost zero chance that Sony would do that, as well traveled as the company is in intellectual property dispute circles. What appears to be more at issue here is Sony's production of a movie with "emoji" in the title at all, not to mention should it attempt to do any merchandising around the film.

"I am curious how Sony would want to produce a movie under that name and do accompanying merchandising, especially given the fact our brand has already been successfully established with license partners and retailers all over the world," Husges told The Hollywood Reporter.

Husges added that the reason he trademarked certain aspects of emoji back in 2013 was to eventually adapt the pictograms for film and television use. He said he believed emojis could be the next Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or Minions if the right stories were applied.

Sony has indicated that it will move forward with the movie, with Husges responding that he's ready to take the film studio on in court. Sony, for its part, has begun working with a licensing firm to ensure that the film's characters themselves won't run afoul of any IP issues.

But what of the title of the film itself, or the use of the term "emoji" on merchandise? Can that word really be the subject of a trademark action when it is clearly descriptive? The etymology of the word "emoji" will travel you down the path of the Japanese language and the portmanteau of the terms for picture and character. Emoji is a literal descriptive term for a picture-character. How does that limited use of the word qualify for trademark protection?

To be clear, longer film titles like The Emoji Movie might qualify for trademark protection for films and merchandise, but that isn't what Husges is arguing. Even were Husges to make good on his promise of his own emoji-based animated productions, that doesn't itself render emoji non-descriptive. Given its recent emergence in popular language, it will be interesting to see how the courts view this dispute, should it ever get that far.

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: emoji movie, emojis, marco husges, movie, trademark
Companies: sony pictures

12 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:31pm

Sony's press release announcing the film made reference to the focus group used to find the idea. The focus group of 30 teenagers wouldn't look up from their phones and send each other emojis mocking the interviewers. We have high hopes for the popularity of this property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Jun 2016 @ 6:45pm

Re:
There! That! This is why a I will never see this movie.

Then there is the fact that Sony is the backer. What other reason would one need to not go, not buy, not pirate?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kronomex, 4 Jun 2016 @ 3:38pm

Angry Birds The Movie. Fruit Ninja The Movie. The Emoji Movie.
For Fucks Sake!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roxie (profile), 4 Jun 2016 @ 4:58pm

TM LAW and Copy rights are a funny thing
Sony feeling it is so big that no little guy will take them on is not off the hook as I see it. The issue is that TM protects your IP from Market confusion, so if the movie in anyway makes people confused as to who owns the emoji's being used, then the gamer has a pretty good stand.the gamer Copy Rights also protect him because if he has them protected correctly then it may be in a pattern or in a set style and marketability line.Like the case with the Harry potter issues. Then Sony would NOT be able to make a movie no matter the title or not. Again it would cause market confusion and would be an infringement of his CR because they cannot copy cat off of his IP when it is protected. How would they like someone to come out with a VERY like brand, they was very like theirs and say OH well it is NOT the exact so you cant do anything, Again MARKET confusion I think this is one BIG issue Sony needs to focus on, in my opinion. I am no fancy lawyer, but we have fought some big companies about the same kind of infringement and WE WON! SO Unless they buy the rights and pay him, which I would bet would be an easy fix to this issues. I hope they lose a TON! I am just over the big companies being BIG SCHOOL YARD BULLIES to us smaller IP owners and creators! I hope the Gamer WINS BIG!!! GOOD LUCK and keep us all posted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 4 Jun 2016 @ 7:40pm

Re:
They already make movies for fucks sake, but theaters won't air X rated material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 5 Jun 2016 @ 4:16am

Re: TM LAW and Copy rights are a funny thing
Excepting the claim is not that they are infringing on any emojis (i.e., smiley representations. Which they are licensing if and where necessary. Have fun owning Unicode space, which is a good half of what emojis are.) The claim is over the word emoji. Which he did not invent and shouldn't be a valid claim for anyone to make, especially by 2013. If Sony used emojitown or emojiworld, there would be a somewhat reasonable and technically valid claim. And anyone who granted him a trademark simply on the word "emoji" is an idiot. Even "for use in television or film" or some such, and considering he hasn't used it that way, he seems like just another IP troll. ("I was on vacation in Craotia and thought about how i could make money off of nothing. In fact, well-established things that have been around for ages.")

Hate on Sony all you want, but this executive rather seems like a smaller version of the same BS you dislike about Sony. If and when they infringe on his merchandising space, he has a better claim. But he wants prior restrain in trademark space?

The only difference between small bullies and big bullies is their size and maybe how many lawyers they can use to prop up their sense of entitlement. The same bad system enables them both.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2016 @ 5:06am

Re: Re:
Isn't that why the Internet was created?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2016 @ 2:22am

Troll: So you use sue others under copyright to get rich?
Author: Not exactly... I mean my work is how I make ends meet. I don't have a lot of other opportunities. Why do you sue others under copyright?
Troll: To get rich!

This sort of shit has got to stop. On both ends! On one hand we have large corps. trying to suffocate competition. On the other small ones are trying to trap the large ones into big payouts. All they see are funking $$$ signs!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 6 Jun 2016 @ 4:35am

An emojional dispute I tell you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin Wimberly (profile), 6 Jun 2016 @ 6:15am

Cannot register movie title as TM
You actually cannot register the title of a single movie (or book or album) as a trademark (unless it is serialized). This is the second or third erroneous "armchair TM attorney" issue I've seen within the last month or two on TechDirt. Please research some of these statements first.

Yes, many times the names of movies are registered trademarks, but not for "movie services" or "movie goods."

See TMEP 1202.08:

1202.08 Title of a Single Creative Work
The title, or a portion of a title, of a single creative work must be refused registration under §§1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, and 1127, unless the title has been used on a series of creative works. The title of a single creative work is not registrable on either the Principal or Supplemental Register. Herbko Int’l, Inc. v. Kappa Books, Inc., 308 F.3d 1156, 1162, 64 USPQ2d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("the title of a single book cannot serve as a source identifier"); In re Cooper, 254 F.2d 611, 615-16, 117 USPQ 396, 400 (C.C.P.A. 1958) , cert. denied, 358 U.S. 840, 119 USPQ 501 (1958) ("A book title ... identifies a specific literary work ... and is not associated in the public mind with the publisher, printer or bookseller...."); In re Posthuma, 45 USPQ2d 2011 (TTAB 1998) (holding the title of a live theater production unregistrable); In re Hal Leonard Publ'g Corp., 15 USPQ2d 1574 (TTAB 1990) (holding INSTANT KEYBOARD, as used on music instruction books, unregistrable as the title of a single work); In re Appleby, 159 USPQ 126 (TTAB 1968) (holding the title of single phonograph record, as distinguished from a series, does not function as mark).
As noted in In re Cooper, there is a compelling reason why the name or title of a book cannot be a trademark, which stems from copyright law. Unlike a copyright that has a limited term, a trademark can endure for as long as the trademark is used. Therefore, once copyright protection ends, and the work falls in the public domain, others must have the right to call the work by its name. G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Syndicate Publ’g Co., 237 U.S. 618, 622 (1915); In re Cooper, 254 F.2d at 616, 117 USPQ at 400; Mattel Inc. v. Brainy Baby Co., 101 USPQ2d 1140, 1144 (TTAB 2011). Moreover, if the work sought to be registered is not copyrighted, the public may copy it at once and would be as clearly entitled to call it by its name. In re Cooper, 254 F.2d at 616, 117 USPQ at 400.
See TMEP §1301.02(d) regarding the titles of radio and television programs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jun 2016 @ 7:54am

Given sony's track record when it comes to abusing copyright, fair use law and ip's. I prefer to believe in some random nobody I have never heard of before, than sony.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Cow, 6 Jun 2016 @ 9:57am

Re:
Exploding Kittens The Movie would be worthwhile though
[ link to this | view in thread ]