North Face Goes After South Butt Over Trademark Infringement

from the morons-in-a-hurry-in-heavy-fleeces dept

Another day, another story of a company reacting overly aggressively with a trademark infringement claim. North Face, the well known clothing company, apparently is not at all pleased with a student who created a parody line of clothing called "South Butt." The lawyer representing the student had a great quote:

"I did try to explain with a great deal of candor to counsel for the North Face that the general public is aware of the difference between a face and a butt."

And, indeed, that's the central question in most trademark lawsuits. Are the customers confused into thinking that they're buying one product, rather than the other. It would be pretty difficult for North Face to claim with a straight face that those buying South Butt clothing don't realize it's a different company...

Filed Under: clothing, moron in a hurry, parody, trademark
Companies: north face, south butt

Sucks Site Lawsuits Move To Include Facebook As Well

from the really? dept

We've covered how it's a dumb idea for companies to sue so-called "sucks sites," (sites that complain about a company). First, plaintiffs in such lawsuits almost never win. The trademark claims almost always fail. No one is confusing the sucks site with the company they complain about. Second, just bringing such a lawsuit tends to call significantly more attention to the complaints against the company (the ever popular "Streisand Effect"). And yet... they still keep on coming. The latest one has a bit of a twist, though. Rather than suing the owner of a website, the organization is suing the guy who set up a complaint group on Facebook. Other than that, though, the scenarios are basically the same. In this case, a beauty school student set up a Facebook group to complain about things happening at the school, and the school sued for both the use of the logo (trademark infringement) and on claims that many of the posts to the group were defamatory.

The trademark claim hopefully gets tossed aside quickly. No one's going to confuse the group for being a part of the school, and it's difficult to see how they'll make a claim that the use was "in commerce." The defamation claim really depends on what was said... but if it was said by other students, then it's difficult to see how the student who started the group can be held liable for them. Besides, some courts at least have noted that online forums are the equivalent of a bunch of friends talking over drinks, and the speech should naturally be taken less seriously. One hopes that the judge in this case recognizes the nature of basic online conversations as well.

Filed Under: defamation, social networks, sucks sites, trademark
Companies: facebook

Warren Miller Entertainment Sues Other Film Producer For Having Warren Miller Appear In A Film

from the warren-miller-warren-miller dept

If you ski or snowboard regularly, you've probably come across a Warren Miller Entertainment film at some point in your life. The films, which come out each year just as ski season is about to start, are fun films showing people involved in some extreme skiing activities. Over the years I've probably gone to three or four of them. The name for WME comes from (surprise surprise) filmmaker Warren Miller, who started making such movies about 60 years ago. Warren Miller sold WME a while back, and while he was still involved with the films for a while hasn't had much to do with them in a few years now. However, producers of another ski movie called Refresh, Level 1 Productions, used Mr. Miller in their recent film, and that convinced WME to break out the lawyers. Zack Stecher lets us know that WME is suing Level 1, claiming that it's violating WME's trademark on the name Warren Miller by having him appear in their film and by mentioning the fact that he appears in the film. Except... that's entirely accurate. Warren Miller does appear in Refresh and it would be quite a ridiculous finding under trademark law to find that he can't use his own name in any film. Luckily, the initial ruling from the court seems to recognize this. A judge refused to grant an injunction preventing the showing of Refresh:

Krieger wrote in her decision, "the Defendant apparently secured Mr. Miller's agreement to appear in 'Refresh,' and should be entitled to identify him to the public and advise the public that Mr. Miller does, in fact, appear in the film.

"According to the Complaint, every instance in which the Defendant used the 'WARREN MILLER' mark involved either Mr. Miller personally identifying himself or the Defendants making reference to Mr. Miller as a participant in the film," Krieger added. "These uses of Mr. Miller's name are entirely consonant with the public's interest in being able to truthfully identify a specific person."

There may be a separate issue concerning a contractual relationship between Warren Miller and Warren Miller Entertainment, but WME does not appear to be suing Warren Miller directly, so that issue is unrelated to this particular lawsuit.

Filed Under: trademark, warren miller
Companies: level 1 productions, warren miller entertainment

Indian Company Sues Google For Showing Competitors Ads... Even Though It Places Ads On Competitors Too

from the what's-good-for-us... dept

There have been plenty of misguided lawsuits against Google, when someone gets upset and realizes that competitors are buying AdWords on their name or other trademarks. But, of course, that shouldn't be a trademark violation (unless the resulting ad is confusing). It's just well-placed marketing. Furthermore, even if it is trademark infringement, it shouldn't be Google's liability, but the party who bought and created the ad. However, the lawsuits still keep coming -- with the latest one being in India. But what makes this one special is that the complaining company seems to be buying those types of ads itself. So while it's complaining that competitors' ads show up on searches for its own name, it had no problem buying ads on competitors' names. Why not just try competing by offering a better service, rather than worrying about how competitors advertise?

Filed Under: ads, adwords, competitors, india, trademark
Companies: google

Frugalista! Frugalista! Frugalista! Now... Where's My Cease And Desist?

from the this-is-getting-silly dept

The term "frugalista" is apparently quite popular, such that the word has even been defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. There are a bunch of bloggers who write about "frugal living" who refer to themselves as "frugalistas." It was a nice little community... until a trademark claim entered into the mess. William alerts us to the news that a blogger (who established her blog long after the word was in common usage) has trademarked the term and is having her lawyer send cease-and-desist letters to other bloggers who refer to themselves as frugalistas. A US News reporter asked the woman's lawyer how it could possibly make sense that she could go after people who used the term before her client did, and the lawyer's response was:

"they all have to stop now."

Except... no. That's not quite how trademark works. But, once again, in a society where people think they get to claim ownership of whatever they want, we end up in silly situations like this. Hopefully the threatened bloggers are able to stand up to the bullying frugalista. Who knew that living the frugalista lifestyle included trademark infringement suits?

Filed Under: blogging, frugalista, trademark

You Don't Get To Double (Or Triple) Dip On Damages For Both Copyright And Trademark Infringement

from the it's-really-only-one-copy dept

Lately, we've been seeing a lot more copyright lawsuits coupled with trademark lawsuits. Quite often, the idea is to use the trademark claim to get around any DMCA safe harbor that's been claimed, but some may be doing it to try to increase damages. It looks like at least one court has stopped one attempt to do just that. Michael Scott points us to a ruling in NY, where a software developer charged someone else with both copyright and trademark infringement. The accused never responded to the lawsuit, so the original developer won a default judgment. However, on requesting separate statutor claims for infringing on copyrights and trademarks, as well as on violating the DMCA, the court said no, pointing out that it was really only one copy, not three, and thus the end result only "produced one harm."

Filed Under: copyright, damages, trademark

Linden Lab Sued Over Copied Virtual Goods

from the dmca,-anyone? dept

Way back in 2003, when Linden Lab announced that individuals owned the real world copyright on virtual trinkets they made in the game, we noted that this was a bad idea that would lead to problems. It was, in effect, taking bad real world laws and bringing them into a virtual world. It was even worse, because it was taking real world laws that were designed for a world of scarcity, and bringing them into a world of abundance -- and effectively allowing the laws to reach from the real world into the virtual world. That's a recipe for trouble.

And, indeed, a few years back there were lawsuits over "copied" products, though the main one we know of ended with both sides dropping the case. However, a new lawsuit has been filed, but this time, Linden Lab itself is a target, and the guy suing is claiming both copyright and trademark infringement. It's the same basic story. A guy creates virtual things (in this case, "sex toys") in Second Life, others copy them, and he's pissed off, so he sues. But he's suing Linden Lab, perhaps because it's better to sue a company that actually has money.

But legally, it seems like a huge longshot. The copyright claim should get tossed out pretty quickly due to DMCA safe harbors. The guy filing the lawsuit claims they don't apply "because it is aware of the rampant infringement of Alderman's copyrights and trademarks, and hasn't take proactive steps to prevent that piracy." Unless there's specific evidence of Linden Lab being informed of a particular infringement that Second Life ignored, it's hard to see how this isn't protected by the safe harbor. The trademark claim isn't covered by safe harbors (which is a problem...), but it's difficult to see how anyone could claim that Linden Lab is the one violating anyone's trademark here. Yet again... someone who can't handle the fact that digital goods are copyable feels he needs to lash out and sue everyone, rather than adapt.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, liability, safe harbors, trademark, virtual goods
Companies: linden lab

WIPO Once Again Sides With Trademark Holder Over Common Sense

from the ta-ta-wipo dept

The phrase "ta ta" is a well known way of saying goodbye. So, it was a cute idea for an Indian online travel site to use the domain name OkTaTaByeBye.com. Except... of course, one of the biggest companies in India happens to be called Tata. So, of course, the Tata corporation went to WIPO complaining of trademark infringement. And WIPO, as it almost always seems to do, sided with the big company, and said that the domain name infringes (thanks, stat_insig). The travel site is planning to appeal, and hopefully whoever hears the appeal will recognize that the site is pretty clearly not associated with Tata. Still, it's yet another example of a big company thinking that its rights extend quite far.

Filed Under: domain name, trademark
Companies: tata, wipo

MLM Company Accuses Blogging Critic Of Trademark Infringement Over Metatag Usage

from the good-luck-there dept

A bunch of folks have sent in the news that MonaVie, a company I must confess I've never heard of -- but which apparently is a typical multilevel marketing deal, this time involving something to do with acai berries -- is threatening a critical blogger for the sin of mentioning the company name in metatags. Well, actually, they threatened him over a lot more in their legal nastygram to the blogger's domain registrar. However, when the good folks at The Consumerist asked MonaVie for clarification, the company's lawyer claimed that the original letter was from "a new person working in our compliance department" who apparently went a bit too far. But, that the company still felt the use in metatags was a violation of trademarks. That seems hard to believe for a variety of reasons, as no moron in a hurry would confuse a blog critical of MonaVie with the company itself. This certainly sounds like an abuse of trademark law in an attempt to stifle speech.

Filed Under: acai, metatags, mlm, trademark
Companies: monavie

Disney Sued For Selling The Pixar Lamp... And The Lawsuit Makes Sense

from the ok,-here-we-go... dept

We usually focus on trademark lawsuits that make no sense at all... but effective trademark law exists to prevent confusion among consumers (i.e., it's really more of a consumer protection law, rather than an "intellectual property" law) and thus there are plenty of reasonable trademark infringement lawsuits out there. This appears to be one of them. Lamp maker Luxo is apparently suing Disney for selling real versions of Pixar's iconic computer animated lamp. Pixar, of course, has long used the lamp as a part of its logo: At first, I thought perhaps Luxo was suing Disney because of the similarities to Luxo's lamps. But the issue is that Disney is now selling a real version of the Pixar lamp... and bizarrely decided to market it as "The Luxo Jr." Yes, everyone admits that John Lasseter designed the lamp to look like the Luxo lamp, but why call it that when selling it? It's amazing that of all the trademark lawyers at Disney, none of them suspected there might be a complaint from the real Luxo, if Disney were to sell a lamp using the Luxo name. This is a situation where not only a moron in a hurry, but your everyday lamp buyer, might reasonably assume that the Disney Luxo Jr. lamp is actually made by Luxo.

So, two questions: who at Disney allowed this to go forward? And why didn't Disney and Luxo just do the most obvious thing and have Luxo make the lamps for Disney?

Filed Under: lamp, trademark
Companies: disney, luxo, pixar