Olive Garden Asks Olive Garden Reviewer Not To Refer To Olive Garden Due To Trademarks
from the penne-for-your-thoughts? dept
At some point, even the dimmest of lawyers will understand that parody and fair use are not infringement. There may be all sorts of reasons why big companies send dubious cease-and-desist letters over protected speech. Sometimes it's because lawyers are misinformed. Sometimes it's to silence criticism.
But in an odd and all around hilarious exchange between the company that owns the Olive Garden chain of restaurants and the owner of a website that reviews Olive Garden dishes, I can't think of a single reason why a sane lawyer would want to fire off the following letter to allofgarden.com.
To Whom It May Concern:
As you are likely aware, Darden is a full-service restaurant company, and owns and operates over 1,500 restaurants through subsidiaries under the Olive Garden®, LongHorn Steakhouse®, The Capital Grille®, Yard House®, Seasons 52®, Bahama Breeze®, and Eddie V's Prime Seafood® brands and has a portfolio of over 650 trademarks in over 70 countries related to the same (collectively "Trademarks”.)
In connection with Darden Corporation’s proprietary rights over its famous trademark(s) we are notifying you of the following:
Darden Corporation has recently learned that the trademark Olive Garden appears as a metatag, keyword, visible or hidden text on the web site(s) located at the below listed URL(s) without having obtained prior written authorization from Darden Corporation. This practice infringes upon the exclusive intellectual property rights of Darden Corporation.
http://allofgarden.com/
As a trademark owner, Darden Corporation is obligated to enforce its rights by taking action to ensure that others do not use its trademarks without permission. Unauthorized use of the trademark(s) could create a likelihood of confusion with Darden Corporation’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site(s), online location(s), products or services.
In light of the above, we request that you respond to this e-mail within ten (10) days, informing us that you have removed all metatags, keywords, visible or hidden texts including trademark(s) presently appearing on the above-cited website(s) and any other website(s), or draw this issue to the attention of the appropriate person(s).
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Darden Corporation
brandenforcements@mm-darden.com
There's much to unpack there. First, claiming trademark infringement for use of marks in metatags and simple text within a website is a highly dubious practice. But when even the most cursory glance at allofgarden.com makes it clear that it's a site dedicated to reviewing Olive Garden, it should be immediately obvious that even the most direct reference to the chain would be squarely covered by fair use. Even the name of the site, something of a homophone of the Olive Garden name, would be covered as parody, if not as part of the site's status as a review site. Even more strangely, it's not as though this is one of those so-called "sucks sites" dedicated to simply slamming Olive Garden at every turn. Some reviews, such as this one, are purely positive, devoid of snark at all.
But if Malone is a talented reviewer of chain-based "Italian" food, he's a savant in responding to frivolous legal threats, as he has happily posted his response on his website for all to see.
Mr. Forcements -- may I call you Branden? Since this an asynchronous mode of communication, I'm going to assume you are magnanimously acquiescing, and I will refer to you as Branden forthwith -- I received your email yesterday.
I am not aware of any law against reviewing food and describing it using the name of the company from which it was procured. Some might even call it Nominative Fair Use. I have helpfully included a link to Wikipedia™, The Free Encyclopedia™, for more information on this concept, in case you are new. Just click on the blue words to access the HyperLink™, and you will be transported there in great haste.
With that in mind, can you be more specific about what you would like me to do? If you want me to remove references to the Olive Garden from my blog, which, I remind you, solely consists of references to Olive Garden, I'm afraid I must decline.
If you are asking me to simply add TradeMark® Symbols™ I must also decline, as I do not know the alt keycode for writing them.
Perhaps you are asking me to take down my blog entirely. In doing so, Darden Corporation would commit its largest crime against humanity since they started charging extra for toppings. Seriously, $2.99 for two lousy meatballs? And you're saying I ripped you off?
Please respond within nine (9) days, in limerick form.
Wishing the whole Forcements family a pleasant day,
Vincent "Vino" Malone
Olive Garden Connoisseur
Age 29 and a Half
Every part of this response is pure gold, from the intentional misreading of the emailer's name to the refusal to comply with every request and link with the reasons why. Malone is being a pleasant pain in the ass in this response, yes, but it's funny. It's also now public, thanks to Malone's posting of it. And, most importantly, the request from Olive Garden is a silly one when viewed with an eye towards the law.
Still, I have to admit I'm slightly hoping that Branden Forcements replies in limerick form as requested, just to see what they come up with. If Olive Garden wants to get on the right side of this thing quickly, that limerick will be in the form of an apology.
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: allofgarden, olive garden, reviews, threats, trademark, vincent malone
Companies: darden corporation, olive garden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Limericks!
I wrote with such haste I just couldn't see
That to eat at our joint
Is kind of the point
Of your whole blog and your joie de vivre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's gold! I'd love to share a glass of wine and some endless breadsticks with this guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Limericks!
who confused some reviews for endorsements
His threats that came after
caused so much laughter
that perhaps he should seek new employments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Limericks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lordy, sometimes i need a laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Olaf Guardin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Olaf Guardin'
Huh, sounds like the White House Press Corps briefings these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Olaf Guardin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mybe not by a literal robot, but at least a figurative one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Request Satisfied
The entire Interwebz is now attentive to your lol-worthy stupidity, brandenforcements@mm-darden.com of Darden Corporation. Haz you yet more Entertainment™ to offer?
Yours Truly,
The Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close, so very close
Who set forth seeking a pardon
But Olive cried out in vain
to the knave who took her name
'cos olive was a fuckwit called brandon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Got it
Who set forth seeking a pardon
But Olive cried out in vain
to the knave who took her name
'cos olive was a fuckwit called Darden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the corporate lawyer is missing in this case is something even more basic, that everyone is allowed to use trademarks freely when *referring to what the trademark identifies*.
The principle here is more like, trademarking a term does not entitle the owner to prevent anyone from using it unless they're identifying some other product or service (in same or similar category).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's some information on fair use in trademark law....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No Mike
I didn't write this.
it's not fair use! Fair use is a defence in copyright infringement. It has no applicability with trademarks.
Nominitive fair use is a concept in trademark law. You should look it up.
What the corporate lawyer is missing in this case is something even more basic, that everyone is allowed to use trademarks freely when referring to what the trademark identifies.
You know what the legal term is for "everyone is allowed to use trademarks freely when referring to what the trademark idenetifies"? It's... (drumroll)... "nominitive fair use."
Which technically means "this is allowed because I'm just naming the thing" -- which is the same thing you were saying.
It's shorter than your version too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademark Fair Use [was Re: ]
International Trademark Association (INTA) Fact Sheet—
Fair Use of Trademarks (Intended for a non-legal audience) (updated January, 2016):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was actually IN THE LETTER!
I am starting to think making commentators answer questions to prove they have read the article before posting is a super good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you mean a HyperLink™ to a article on Wikipedia™, The Free Encyclopedia™, about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"by Timothy Geigner"
You know, even if you were correct about the rest of your assumptions - and you're not - you don't get to claim superior knowledge when you directly attack someone who didn't write the article you're responding to. If you can't get a fact correct that's stated in bold type at the top of this page, why should anyone believe any other "fact" you claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're desperate for more Olive Garden-related limericks than what's already here, there's some good ones buried in the comments of Ars's article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Streisand Streisand,
Streisand, Streisand,
Streisand, Streisand,
Streisand Streisand Streisand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Needs more cowbell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: more cowbell
I Streisanded an Olive Garden.
Moo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: more cowbell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You see that "mm" in the email address? That means MarkMonitor. Yes, the same MarkMonitor that sent a cease and desist to a thousand year old village for daring to use a name before a hotel chain that MM represents (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150504/07402630883/1000-year-old-village-told-to-stop-using-nam e-because-trademark-claim-hotel-chain-founded-there.shtml)
But hey, it's not like MM has to worry about any repercussions for sending bogus takedown notices...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just the ridicule that comes from doing something utterly stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ridicule only works as a deterrent if it affects profits and/or the recipient of it is capable of feeling shame. The latter is clearly not the case, and the former likewise doesn't seem to be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I had no idea why all these restaurants were mediocre
I had no clue all these other restaurants were associated. Why would they want to tarnish their image by listing them in the same place as Olive Garden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who?
"As you are likely aware, Darden is a full-service restaurant company, and owns..."
Actually no - I for one have never heard of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File a counter-suit
1) No, Darden doesn't have to "enforce" its trademark to keep it. The counter-suit should go after the lawyers that told the executives that this was true OR go after the lawyers who send robo-letters.
2) Even if this was true, who in the world thinks it's a good idea to file a takedown notice against a review site... and a review site with good reviews?
What would happen if he took his site down and replaced it with "Olive Garden sucks" instead of the good reviews?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File a counter-suit
A C&D is not a lawsuit, no matter how dumb it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Followup: Resolution Reached
News today via Cyrus Farivar at Ars Technica, “Olive Garden apologizes to AllOfGarden blog, offers $50 gift card” (Wednesday, July 26, 2017):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]