Would A Moron In A Hurry Be Confused By The Difference Between A High School And A Pickup Truck?

from the depends-on-the-moron dept

Copycense points us to a story from Florida involving a high school that quite clearly copied the logo of the Dodge Ram for the school mascot: After someone alerted Chrysler, the lawyers got involved, and the school is now in the process of changing its logo and removing it from everything (including the gym floor). My first though was wondering whether or not this was "use in commerce," which is required for trademark infringement. I think a lawyer could make an argument that a school's usage isn't use in commerce -- but perhaps that's undermined by the logo appearing on school clothing (though, it's not clear that the clothes are for sale, or just what the sports teams get). However, I do wonder if the Dodge logo trademark covers use on gymnasium floors and clothing...

But, honestly, the bigger issue is why the hell would Chrysler be upset about this? At worst it's getting a ton of free advertising from this school, with many students having a feeling of affinity for the logo, which could potentially increase their interest in buying a Dodge in the future. Car companies spend lots of money on sponsorship to get their logos seen by lots of people. And here's a school that's done that entirely for free... and Chrysler sends in the lawyers?

Filed Under: dodge ram, high schools, logo, ram, trademark
Companies: chrysler

Amateur Artist Wants To Ban All Sales Of Old Baltimore Ravens Game Films Over Logo Copyright

from the this-is-what-copyright-law-does dept

Copycense points us to an ongoing lawsuit by a guy seeking to bar the Baltimore Ravens and the NFL from making use commercially of any game involving the Ravens from 1996 to 1998. At issue was that this guy claimed his logo design was copied by the team. A few years back, William Patry detailed the ridiculousness behind the original lawsuit and how it had resulted in many more ridiculous lawsuits:

Bouchat, a security guard in Baltimore, believed that the Baltimore Ravens had infringed a design he claims to have created for the team's logo. He sued the team and the NFL's licensing arm. In my opinion, there was no evidence of access and the thus the case should have been summarily dismissed. In my opinion, the case was a shakedown. But, applying the fatally flawed theory of striking similarity, the case went to a jury. The jury found liability, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed in an awful decision that drew an excellent dissent by Judge King, 228 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 2000), amended by and pet. for reh'g en banc denied. 241 F.3d 350. Judge King's dissent is the best thing yet written on why striking similarity is inherently inconsistent with basic copyright principles, and as to the facts in Bouchat, devastating to the plaintiff's claim and the majority opinion.

While Bouchat "won," he wasn't given any money, because he had failed to register his design before it was put into use. But he's since sued various other companies, and this latest lawsuit is an attempt to say that no one can show those old films because they use "his" logo, despite the lack of evidence of actual copying (which, if copyright were actually about copyright would be necessary). The lower court turned him down, noting that the use of the logo was incidental and fair use, but Bouchat is (of course) appealing. This is, again, in line with Patry's analysis that this is nothing more than a shakedown. He's not really interested in stopping the sale of these videos. He wants the team to pay him a big chunk of money so that it can keep selling the videos. This is not what copyright is intended to do, but it's what happens when copyright law gets out of control.

Filed Under: baltimore ravens, copyright, logo, substantial similarity

Company Trademarks The Pirate Bay Logo

from the missing-the-point dept

Quite a few people have pointed to the story about a Swedish company that has trademarked The Pirate Bay logo, and plans to sell USB keys with the logo included. The company claims that this is fine because The Pirate Bay had not registered the trademark itself. In the meantime, some folks associated with The Pirate Bay are saying they're going to try to overturn the ruling.

I don't know how Swedish trademark law works, but at least in the US there is a concept of a "common law trademark," which is supposed to prevent others from registering a mark on a brand that someone else is using -- even if they haven't registered it. It would seem like quite a silly trademark law if the Swedish trademark law doesn't include anything like that.

As for those who think it's ironic or even hypocritical that The Pirate Bay guys are somewhat bothered by this, you need to understand a few things. First, they clearly state that they have no problem with anyone doing anything else with The Pirate Bay logo. So, if this company just wanted to sell those USB keys by itself, it could do so. The issue they have is with this company "locking up" the trademark so others can't use it. That seems entirely in support with what they stand for.

Separately, it's worth pointing out (yet again, because some people still get confused by this) that trademarks are wholly different beasts than copyrights or patents. Trademarks are not about protectionism, but about preventing consumer confusion over who actually made or offers a specific product. It's a very different concept.

Filed Under: logo, trademark
Companies: the pirate bay

Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design

from the did-I-miss-something dept

I'm trying to understand where the legal issue is here, but a "freelance artist" and alumnus of NYU is apparently suing the school because it used the bobcat mascot she designed. But here's the thing: she designed it while she was employed by the school's athletic director. In this case, she was just an equipment room clerk, but the associate director (a superior) asked her to create the mascot. And then the school used it. How is that possibly a copyright violation? She was employed by the school. Her boss asked her to do some work for the school. She did it. I'm having trouble understanding where there's a copyright violation.

Filed Under: copyright, logo, nyu, work for hire

Can A Moron In A Hurry Tell The Difference Between A Hershey Bar And A Couch?

from the yummy-cushions... dept

There are some legal decisions that just make no sense. Gunnar writes in to let us know of a story in Michigan, where a judge has ordered a furniture store to stop using a design that shows a couch being unwrapped from a candy bar. Hershey's sued the furniture company, claiming it violated their trademark on unwrapping chocolate bars: But here's the thing: even the judge admits that trademark law shouldn't apply here because it's a totally different business and there's little chance of customer confusion: "While both parties cater to the general public, there is no indication that their customers are predominantly the same. Even if their customer bases overlap to some extent ... the risk of consumers confusing a furniture outlet with a candy store, or vice versa, appears remote." Those are all things a judge says right before denying the trademark claim, but in this case, it went the other way. If a moron in a hurry isn't likely to be confused, then there's no trademark infringement. The furniture store wasn't even using the image yet -- but just had it in a contest for truck designs. At least the company hadn't spent too much money painting up all the trucks.

Filed Under: chocolate, couch, furniture, logo, moron in a hurry, trademark
Companies: hershey

Apple Forgets About the Moron In A Hurry Test, Threatens School With An Apple In Its Logo

from the comparing-apples-and-oranges dept

It was just a few years ago when Apple used the moron in a hurry test to defend itself against a trademark suit, but their own legal department seems to have forgotten about it already. Apple has sent a cease and desist letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology for the use of a blue and green apple element in their logo. The Canadian school has created a comparison page on their website in an attempt to highlight the differences between the logos, hoping to dissuade Apple from launching a lawsuit by building public support. The page also contains the legal correspondence to date, including a letter in which the school's president asks if Apple is "suggesting that anyone using any variation of an apple for technology education related use is infringing on Apple's trademark."

The legal question is really about consumer confusion, as the Canadian Supreme Court has understood in the past. Trademark law doesn't grant the holder an exclusive right over every use of a mark, just the right to prevent confusing or misleading use of it. The school is a technology school, but they're also a school -- an apple is a pretty common symbol for education. It seems like "even a moron in a hurry" would recognize the difference between the two logos, especially since the acronym "VSBT" is part of the school's. The real problem here seems to be the requirement of trademark law that the holder of a mark actively polices its use. This requirement encourages these sorts of cease and desist letters, even if it seems like a comparison between apples and oranges.

Filed Under: logo, moron in a hurry, trademark
Companies: apple

Google Sending Cease And Desist Letters Just For Using Google Logo

from the morons-in-a-hurry dept

Well, we know that Google gets dragged into bogus trademark lawsuits all the time, but that doesn't mean Google should be making bogus trademark claims itself. The latest is that the company's lawyers sent a cease & desist letter to a guy for using the Google logo on an informative site where it was explained how to get your business listed on various search engines. While it is true that you need to protect your trademark or risk losing it, it's ridiculous to think that this is a case where the trademark is being infringed or needs to be "protected." Google's complaint is that this somehow might confuse people into believing the site was associated with Google and lessens Google's ability to make money. If we pull out the ever popular moron in a hurry test, we find that Google's claims don't stand up. No moron in a hurry is going to think the site is officially associated with Google. As for hurting Google's ability to make money, this is a site that will get more people to use Google -- which is Google's exact defense when newspapers flip out about Google linking to them.

Filed Under: logo, trademark
Companies: google