'Geek Power': Best Buy Sends C&D To Newegg Over Marketing Campaign

from the oh-come-on dept

Ah, Best Buy. It's apparently decided to get into the trademark bullying business. The company sent well known online electronics retailer Newegg a cease & desist (shown below) because Newegg is running a marketing campaign called "Geek On" with the "O" in "On" made to look like a "power on" button. Best Buy claims that this is biting off its own Geek Squad logo, which similarly uses a power on button (though, with a tie): The shirt is Newegg. The callout is Best Buy. And, yes, they look nothing alike. No moron in a hurry is going to be confused here. To make it even more crazy, Best Buy, in true conspiracy theory mode, decides that Newegg is also violating its trademarks because of the following commercial, which pokes fun at Best Buy: Best Buy takes offense at all this and claims that it's trademark infringement:

The fake Best Buy employee is depicted as being slovenly and uninformed about computer products, in contrast to your employees who are portrayed as "experts."

Your misuse of our valuable trademarks and your negative portrayal of our employees violate our trademark rights and misleads consumers about our services, in violation of federal and state law. While we welcome fair competition, we cannot tolerate unfair competition that disparages our employees, confuses customers and damages our valuable trademarks and the goodwill associated with those marks. We take great pride in our employees and the high quality of customer service they offer and find your company's focus on our employees in this advertising campaign to be particularly offensive.

Of course, there are all sorts of problems with these claims. The logos looking nothing alike, as we've already discussed, but the whole thing about the TV ad is just ridiculous. There's clearly no trademark issue there, as competitors are absolutely allowed to poke fun at each other. No one is going to think that Best Buy "sponsored" the Newegg commercial. There's no consumer confusion at all. More amusingly, the fact that Best Buy thinks that Newegg is portraying Best Buy employees says a lot about how Best Buy views its own employees.

Of course, as many are pointing out, this whole thing has done the exact opposite of what Best Buy probably wanted. First, it's driven a ton of attention to Newegg's commercial, but more importantly, it's made Newegg supporters -- who are generally quite tech savvy -- really dislike Best Buy even more than they may have already. Newegg had posted the C&D letter on its Facebook page, and the response are almost universally anti-Best Buy: Perhaps next time Best Buy will think about the consequences of sending out such a bogus C&D before all of this happens.

Filed Under: cease & desist, geek squad, trademark
Companies: best buy, newegg

Best Buy Threatens Priest Over His God Squad Parody; How Does God Feel About Trademark Law?

from the god-vs.-the-moron-in-a-hurry dept

Whoo boy. Apparently Best Buy, owners of the "Geek Squad" brand has prodded God by sending a cease-and-desist letter to a priest who has set up a "God Squad" car that does, in fact, look remarkably similar to the infamous Geek Squad VW Beetles: Obviously, the God Squad logo -- including the use on the same sort of car -- was used to build off of the brand reputation (which, um, isn't that good) of the Geek Squad. The priest could argue parody fair use, but it doesn't seem that the effort is commentary on the Geek Squad so much as it's just designed to get attention. It's worth noting, of course, that there are other "God Squads" out there as well, including a long running TV show, so at the very least, it does look like Best Buy has focused on this case due to the more direct similarities beyond the name.

Still, it does make you wonder if there's any actual likelihood of confusion. While this may get some attention, is anyone actually going to think that the priest is somehow associated with Best Buy? Does Best Buy's trademark even cover religious services (beyond the ever popular religious debates on operating systems?). In a legal battle between God and a moron in a hurry, who wins? And, most importantly, does it even make sense to antagonize someone obviously doing something like this for the fun of it? I recognize the traditional trademark lawyer response that a company "has to protect its trademarks," but that always ignores that there are other, much more friendly options.

In the meantime, if we're talking about God and intellectual property, it seems worth re-running the Mimi & Eunice cartoon on the topic:

Filed Under: geek squad, god squad, trademark
Companies: best buy

Best Buy Says Creator Of iPhone/Evo Video Can Keep His Job; Guy Says He'd Rather Not

from the backtracking dept

Last week you probably saw the story of how the guy, Brian Maupin, who created this hilarious iPhone vs. HTC Evo video was suspended by Best Buy and told he was going to get fired: Given the massive backlash against Best Buy for this move, it appears the company is backtracking quickly. Best Buy's CEO did a blog post saying the company had "completed its investigation" and Brian was being offered his job back. The CEO also points out -- as people did in the comments, that some of the original concern wasn't so much about the famed iPhone/Evo video (which doesn't mention Best Buy), but other videos he had done that had mentioned the company (which have since been taken down).

Reader Jupiter points out that Maupin is now saying he's not sure he really wants to go back to working at Best Buy, and noting that the CEO's backtracking is very different than what he was told by the company last week:

"(The company statement) is a 180 from what they were saying Thursday, but I guess me they either made peace with the videos I left up or decided the others weren't so bad. Here's a statement I'm issuing as well:

"Right now I'm planning on taking a leave of absence so I may survey my current career plans and the future. I'm not sure if it would be comfortable returning to Best Buy considering the circumstances, but I will definitely consider all options."

Filed Under: evo, fired, iphone, video, viral video
Companies: best buy

Best Buy Firing Employee Because He Makes A Funny Video That Doesn't Even Mention Best Buy

from the no-sense-of-humor dept

There's an amusing text-to-speech animated video making the rounds (I've been sent it half a dozen times already) mocking iPhone-obsessed buyers going into stores and not caring that phones like the HTC Evo might have better specs, because they just "want an iPhone." It's amusing (though, probably not safe for work from an audio standpoint -- so wear headphones, or work with cool people): Well over a million people have seen it. It's definitely gone viral. But that, of course, doesn't make it a story worth mentioning here.

What does is Best Buy's incredible stupidity about the video. Wait, you might ask, what does the video have to do with Best Buy? In the video the store is called "Phone Mart," and there's no mention of Best Buy at all. There's absolutely nothing about the video that would have you thinking about Best Buy. Until now.

Andrew F points us to the news that the creator of the video actually works at Best Buy -- even though pretty much everyone who watched the video had no idea. And now, Best Buy upper management was so afraid that Apple/AT&T might get upset at the idea that Best Buy was mocking the iPhone that it suspended the guy who made it and are in the process of firing him. Yes, despite the fact that no one was associating this video with Best Buy, Best Buy decided to do the one and only thing that would suddenly associate this video with Best Buy in a way that is not, at all, flattering to Best Buy. If it was afraid of how this video would look for Best Buy, it probably should have considered how much worse firing the guy who made it looks.

Filed Under: firing, htc evo, iphone, video, viral video
Companies: best buy

Do People Really Think Best Buy's Retread Of CinemaNow Will Eat Into Netflix And Blockbuster?

from the am-I-missing-something? dept

CinemaNow was one of the dreadful early Hollywood attempts at offering streaming videos online. Pretty much since it launched it was considered a joke that no one used. However, Best Buy last year announced a "partnership" with the latest owners of CinemaNow, Sonic Solutions, and have now announced that they've also bought the name CinemaNow. Best Buy has now announced it will be using the name for a new movie download service still powered by the same tech as the old CinemaNow. Got that? Of course, the press is saying will compete with Netflix and Blockbuster's streaming offerings -- and the stock of both companies took a hit. But, it's difficult to see what's all that compelling about this new service. Unlike the popular "all you can eat" models, Best Buy's will be $4 per movie download with $15 for full "purchase." Those prices seem quite high, especially when you can find used DVDs for half that or less. Plus, why bother going to Best Buy for all of this?

At least some in the press wonder what all the fuss is about:

Best Buy is hoping to rent digital flicks for $4, and sell permanent downloads for roughly $15 apiece. Those prices aren't all that different from what Blockbuster and Amazon.com have been trying to do for several quarters -- and those companies haven't exactly set the digital realm on fire.

Bulls will argue that Best Buy has certain chain-specific advantages. It can promote the service within its stores, and bundle home theater systems with pre-paid rentals.

So how is Best Buy's scorecard on that front? The company teamed up with TiVo for a strategic alliance last summer, yet the DVR pioneer continues to shed subscribers. Best Buy acquired Napster two years ago, yet Best Buy is still an afterthought in digital music.

Sure, Best Buy sells a ton of DVD and Blu-ray discs. Now, it can tack on digital copies through CinemaNow, and all will be perfect... right?

What's that? Wal-Mart teamed up with Time Warner four years ago to do this with the DVD release of Superman Returns, and it was retail kryptonite? Uh oh.

Basically, this seems like yet another case of "well if we offer service combined with a big brand, people will just have to use it," rather than any look at coming up with at truly compelling offering.

Filed Under: cinemanow, movie downloads, movies
Companies: best buy, blockbuster, netflix

Rescuecom Wants It Both Ways Over Keyword Ads; Involved In Two Lawsuits... But On Opposite Sides

from the that-won't-work-well dept

There have been a bunch of silly lawsuits over the use of competitors' trademarked terms being used in ads on Google AdWords. There are a bunch of different legal issues related to those lawsuits, including whether or not Google should be liable for actions of advertisers, whether it's trademark infringement to mention a competitor in an ad, and whether it's trademark infringement just to have an ad triggered on a competitor's trademarked phrase. There's a company called Rescuecom that has been particularly aggressive in these lawsuits, suing Google for a competitor having ads triggered on their trademarks. While a district court rejected that claim, last year an appeals court sent it back to the lower court to try again. And yet... at the same time, it appears that Rescuecom is involved in a lawsuit on the other side with Best Buy. Best Buy claims that Rescuecom is infringing on the "Geek Squad" trademark, and Rescuecom claims that it has a fair use defense... yes for the very same thing it's accusing others of doing. You have to imagine that's going to be pointed out in both of those lawsuits. Some have suggested that Rescuecom doesn't really care either way, and it believes that these lawsuits are a good PR campaign -- which could explain its different view in each lawsuit. If that's the case, it seems like a rather big abuse of the legal system.

Filed Under: keyword ads, trademarks
Companies: best buy, geek squad, google, rescuecom

Interscope And Best Buy Team Up To Give You A Free Twitter Application For Free (With Purchase)

from the well,-hot-damn dept

Dear major record labels: when we suggested you learn how to embrace "free" in your marketing and promotions, this isn't quite what we meant. Consumerist points out that Interscope (part of Universal Music) has put together a promotion with Best Buy, whereby if you buy a CD from certain Interscope artists, you get a free copy of the software Tweetdeck. Well, that's nice... other than the fact that Tweetdeck is already free. Great deal! Now, to be fair, the copy of Tweetdeck you get is a special "customized" version that automatically has you following 16 Interscope artists (even if you only bought a CD from one of them). Of course, you could also just follow any of those artists yourself (again, for free), so it's not quite clear what the promotion is. But, they sure seem to suggest it's a big deal in the Best Buy newspaper ad: Now, I guess, to some extent, we should note that it's a good thing that a major record label is admitting publicly that "free" can act as a good promotion -- so kudos to Interscope for taking that big step. It's also nice to see Interscope recognize that an infinite good (software) can potentially help sell more scarce goods (CDs). But, on the whole, it definitely seems like this promotion could have been handled a lot better. Pumping up the "free" aspect of something that's already free just doesn't seem that compelling.

Filed Under: free, music, tweetdeck
Companies: best buy, interscope, tweetdeck

Chinese Company Sues American Retailers For Selling 'Knockoffs'

from the yes,-read-that-again dept

Jake points us to a story that (as Jake notes) makes you read the headline twice to make sure you got it right: Chinese Company Sues in U.S. to Block "Knockoff". It's not really "knockoffs" that they're suing over. It's a patent infringement claim from Changzhou Asian Endergonic Electronic Technology Co., which is upset that Best Buy, Wal-Mart and some other retailers are selling a competitors' dashboard mount that it claims is covered by its own patent.

Now, there are a bunch of points worth discussing here. First, apparently this is the first such case of a Chinese company (based in China) suing in the US over a patent infringement claim (a claim that really surprises me). Considering the long history of China copying (blatantly) American products and then reselling them, it's really quite fascinating to see a Chinese company now complain about the "reverse." Of course, as we've been highlighting recently, there's been a big push in China to build up a belief in patents. It seems this firm has already learned the basics of the American patent system: it's suing in Texas, of course!

The other odd thing about this case is filing the lawsuit against the retailers. The company is also suing the manufacturer (another Chinese company) which makes sense, but I've never understood why going after the retailer makes sense. Best Buy, Wal-Mart and others shouldn't need to investigate every product they sell to determine whether it violates someone else's patents. Let that be handled between vendors. Dragging the retailers into the lawsuit is just a waste of resources.

Filed Under: china, knockoffs, patents
Companies: best buy, changzhou asian endergonice electronic technology co., wal-mart

Store Payment Info In Your Online Store? Watch Out For Patent Infringement Lawsuits

from the pay-now dept

Bill Squier alerts us to the news that a bunch of companies have been sued for daring to store consumer payment information and allow either stored value payments or one-click payments on their site. The article linked here focuses on Apple as a defendant, and notes 14 other companies were sued as well, but in researching this, I found that Joe Mullin actually wrote about another batch of companies (20 of them) that were sued back in April. The earlier lawsuit included Google, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, Visa, Vivendi, Disney and Western Union among others. The more recent lawsuit has (as mentioned) Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, American Express, Barnes & Noble, Citigroup and eBay among others. So... basically any online e-commerce site, credit card company or big bank.

As for the patents in question, they're all a variation on a "method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." The specific patents are 7,376,621, 7,249,099, 7,328,189 and 7,177,838. Reading through the claims, this seems like an incredibly typical online system for storing payment info and seeing if the person can actually pay. Since the patent system defenders among our readers get quite upset whenever I say something seems "obvious" to me, let's flip this around. Can anyone explain how these concepts were not obvious at the time of filing?

Not surprisingly, the cases have been filed in Marshall, Texas... and as Joe Mullin figured out, the guy who is running "Actus" is a lawyer known for representing some infamous patent hoarding companies. He also discovered that the lawyer representing Actus in these lawsuits appears to share an office (or at least the same address) with the son (who is also a patent attorney) of the judge handling the case. At some point, do people start questioning whether or not there's a conflict of interest there?

Filed Under: patents, payment
Companies: actus, amazon, american express, apple, bank of america, barnes & noble, best buy, capital one, citigroup, disney, ebay, google, jp morgan, mastercard, visa, vivendi, wal-mart, western union