Chateau Marmont, Hotel For Celebrity Humans, Sends Trademark C&D To Cateau Marmont, Hotel For Cats
from the catfight! dept
While spending a great deal of time writing about dumb trademark disputes can be both monumentally frustrating and fill your mind with despair, I will be the first to admit that it also is a great avenue for entertainment and laughter. This story is about a situation firmly in the latter categories. The Chateau Marmont is a famous hotel in Los Angeles with a reputation for catering to celebrities both in its lodgings and at the restaurant. Roman Polanski took up residence there, while Hunter S. Thompson, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Tim Burton all produced some of their works from within its walls. John Belushi overdosed while residing there in 1982. It's kind of a thing for human celebrities, in other words.
Whereas the Cateau Marmont is a hotel for cats. Just cats. Humans, celebrity or otherwise, need not apply. And, yet, the Chateau Marmont has fired off a cease and desist letter to the Cateau Marmont over trademark concerns centered on the fear of confusion among the public.
According to a July 18 letter obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, the celebrity hot spot is threatening a lawsuit against the adorably named pet spa if the Cateau doesn't change the name of its business. Lawyers for the Andre Balazs-owned hotel warned Cateau, located in Toluca Lake neighborhood of L.A., that it could pursue claims related to trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition.
Group 99, which controls Chateau's intellectual property, insists in the cease & desist letter that their hotel has spent almost a century building the iconic brand and doesn't want customers to mistakenly think the Hollywood hangout is venturing into kitty care and rescue.
C'mon, meow. Concerns about public confusion are a stretch at best. Members of the public aren't going to see this pet boarder's name and assume the human hotel has gotten into the boarding business. Rather, they will assume that the owners of the boarder have playfully pun-ified its name while operating in a distinct marketplace. If the people behind the Cateau Marmont are guilty of anything at all, it's of delving into puns, the laziest form of comedy (which I love dearly).
The fear of confusion on display by the human hotel is also belied by another punny player in the neighborhood.
Interestingly enough, as THR points out, the Chateau Marmont doesn’t seemed too concerned about a Beverly Grove dog spa similarly named Chateau Marmutt — a business established close to two decades ago.
If anything, this should be a fight between Chateau Marmutt and Cateau Marmont, with no involvement for the human counterpart. Meanwhile, the Chateau has spotlighted its own lack of humor, which I will happily point out is a distinct trait for the humans to whom it purports to cater.
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: cateau marmont, chateau marmont, parody, trademark
Companies: chateau marmont, group 99
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Suggested Name Change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Holds up one finger*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I almost expect Chateau Marmont to argue that they've already licenced the "Chateau Marmont, but with animals" concept to Pixar.
"They're having trouble creating more child-friendly versions of Hunter S. Thompson and John Belushi. And a less child-friendly version of Roman Polanski."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can't be trained or bargained with. They do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want, and are definitely the master of any regular humans nearby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, they obviously _do_ profit from Chateau Marmont's celebrity
But, well, that's not what trademark is supposed to be about.
Copyright and trademark and patents are very specific and controllable and limited mechanisms for giving a creator means to profit off his creation in exchange for making it generally available to the public.
The term "Intellectual Property" tends to be associated with the "every profit originating here has to have some part siphoned off" idea readily flouted by everybody in the media creation business.
So the lawyers get into the "one shoe has to fit, so which one is it?" thinking leading to claiming confusion between a cat hotel and a real hotel. Because that's the best they can come up with, and the idea that there actually is nothing to come up with is alien to them. Because, you know, "Intellectual Property".
The grass grew on my lawn, so you are prohibited from painting with this shade of green.
The whole "in exchange for" bit is over their heads. And obvious punning on a meme clearly is one of those things the public gets in exchange for securing trademark for actual cases of confusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks
http://www.lavitasarim.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the response?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, they have accomplished that. They now look like some crazy cat hating jerks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More importantly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More importantly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More importantly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a moral lesson to this story?
I just don't get it. Maybe you could enlighten me. How do I read between the lines and figure out what you are trying to say? Is this just blind criticism, or is there a finer point you are trying to make? Can you give an example of when enforcing a trademark is good, and provide some juxtaposition with this case? Or is enforcing a trademark always bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
But this is the close of the story, the moral summary, right? Isn't the author saying that the Chateau is not funny, and basically "in the wrong"?
It's a humor piece with a specific criticism about a specific company, right? You are saying they (the real Chateau) are not funny, and perhaps are unjustly pressing a trademark dispute when actually, they should not.
Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Laws that govern IP protections - and freedom of speech - generally grant exceptions for humor and parody.
Even when someone crosses the line, one can be technically "in the right", and still be wrong in how they handle the situation.
Techdirt gives credit where credit is due. It features the occasional story where a company handles this sort of situation with the grace and humor it deserves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Another way to summarize this article would be to say "The Chateau is enforcing their trademark, when, in my opinion, they should not be enforcing their trademark. And, IMHO, they are not funny". The whole humor thing is just window dressing to protect your right to free speech, right? It's a little subtle to the uninformed reader, it sounds like a really, really indirect attack, when what you want to say directly is much simpler and easier to comprehend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
If it's not, I don't really understand your confusion. It's a subject that Techdirt often writes about, yet another example of overzealous trademark protectionism.
Usually (though not exclusively) done by a large corporate entity against a much weaker opponent, in a complete disregard of the purpose of trademarks and the trademark law itself. Often times the sued party will fold simply because the cost of fighting a lawsuit would be disastrous, so it doesn't really matter that they are most likely not breaking any laws.
If you click on a "Trademark" category link to the left of the title, you will find hundreds of similar stories.
It's just that this one example includes cat puns and a cat hotel, so it's funny. That's where the entire "entertainment and laughter" part comes in...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Actually, I own a few trademarks
And yet you've never shown or proven them, Hamilton. It's almost as if they don't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Unless your trademarks and other supposed accomplishments are trivial claims, in which case they will be treated in the same way rational people generally treat trivial claims: ignored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Me, neither! Been reading and commenting, asking for CLEAR positions for 8 years, but no answer. They have mantras instead: "better business model" means content producers must accommodate unlimited piracy, and "free speech" means links to infringed content, besides whatever else wanted.
>>> A lot of it seems to be obvious to the regulars here, but not so obvious to me.
Yeah, me too. The fanboys all seem to KNOW every detail, though it's never stated explicitly. The fanboys handle all complaints and defend the site with seeming authority, as this topic shows (so I suspect some are sheer astro-turf). There's no bullet-point list for anything: I've asked. The fanboys will state Techdirt/Masnick's positions, but I've never seen them direct from the alleged source. My conclusion is that Techdirt's true positions will forever be hidden. You cannot get The Masnick to state clear position on copyright, or what changes it might wish: just endless kibbitzing on the alleged horrors of trademark, patents, copyright, in the sixth-decimal place compared to the daily good. But Techdirt defends every "pirate" site from Napster to Megaupload, and every corporation that relies on someone else making content that can be scraped, Aereo to Google.
>>> I think you guys could draw and retain a larger crowd if you were less subtle about your criticisms, and just voiced them, rather than disguising them with humor.
Well, there I disagree with you. (First, set aside Geigner's incompetent attempts at "humor".) If actually stated a position, The Masnick would lose all appearance of objectivity and be seen as klepto-economist. He's never for producers, only for those who simply take intellectual property and monetize it, like The Pirate Bay: all profit with no costs. He claims to be an Ivy League economist, you know, and perhaps is just a hopeless academic. On other hand, he always sides with some mega-corporations. -- Well, I'll just stick to trademark, but Techdirt favors certain corporations and never criticizes their actual monopolies. Take the Copia link to see his sponsors. -- Anyone else even hinting at corporate sponsorship is viewed by fanboys as a shill, but Masnick puts the graphic and never a peep about it.
Techdirt is the WEIRDEST site on teh internets. Enjoy it for hoots, but for your own sanity, don't think to find anyone reasonable here. At best, you'll be worn out responding to fanboys, but it's solely to wear you out.
I like your questions technique, but assumes anyone wants to or can argue anything other than by assertions. It all goes to premises: yours are for production, but Techdirt simply ignores the law on intellectual property from Constitution down: the fanboys simply want endless FREE content to fill their empty heads. That's the only way I've ever understand them, and you are right that they're FOREIGN in that sense. They don't want to make products, only to smoke pot and watch video or play games.
And you will NOT flush out The Masnick or minions for substance, that's been tried every way possible. -- Beware The Masnick, though! It's expert at quote-and-contradict dodging, giving the appearance of answering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Sheesh. And you kids want to be taken seriously.
That comment is sheer negative for free speech and the site.
Yet it won't be censored, I mean "hidden".
And you claim that we're the trolls.
See "Hamilton"? This is all you'll ever get here.
You're currently getting tolerance, but soon your home IP address will be banned too. Then use TOR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Maybe try using another TOR exit node, you know, the ones only pirates would use. Which is all of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Not sure I agree here.
Hotel for people vs Hotel for cats seems to be splitting a finer hair here than the usual examples of trademark abuse.
The fact that they are describing themselves as a hotel rather than a kennel, blurs the line even more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is there a moral lesson to this story?
Continually ending sentences with rhetorical confirmation questions ("right?", "isn't it?", "wouldn't you?", et cetera) does not help your case, does not support your argument, does not present a good image, and also helps serve as an identifying signature of who is writing the post.
I've more than once had to restrain myself from reflexively flagging a post which contained two or three (or more) "right?"-suffixed sentences, just because it's so blatantly passive-aggressive as to arguably qualify as trolling all by itself.
I would suggest that if you cut way back on the use of that sort of rhetorical gimmick, it would - not so much strengthen, perhaps, as "de-weaken" - your position in the discussions.
Maybe one such sentence every three or four posts might be reasonable enough to not obtrude upon the reader's consciousness as a negative factor, but anything more than that - and certainly by the time you have even two in the same post - is IMO enough to be immediately noticeable, and therefore too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, if "Cateau" had gone to "Chateau" first, might have better than avoided.
But apparently just blundered in, USING the established name for its value. Bad practice. I tell you kids over and again that when others are involved, you don't have absolute rights, and when using the values that others make, it's risky at best.
---
3rd attempt because browser session was blocked after one comment.
That's simply hidden censoring.
Yet, I usually get my comments in, and Techdirt goes on unharmed, perhaps even helped by the fanboys having a target for ad hom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, if "Cateau" had gone to "Chateau" first, might have better than avoided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better name
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, I'm far too late in the game
to make any of the week's list. Or even get noticed by more than at most two people (you know who you are).
But imagine you had to write a description of what transpired in this video that, for the sake of argument, might have been taken secretly at a Cateau. And then imagine somebody mistakes this for the Chateau instead.
What a blow to their reputation. Well, on second thought, people still register at the Hilton, Paris. But in theory...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean they're *one* letter apart and both are luxury hotel services (although one is for cats.)
Whereas Chateau Marmutt is actually visually distinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I want to know though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]