Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia Pet Just Applied For Trademark On Jingle For Some R-R-R-Reason

from the what-year-is-this? dept

I'll forgive you if you haven't spent a lot of time thinking about Chia Pets lately. This is, after all, 2020 and not the 90s and we a couple of things going on that have probably held your attention. If you're so young that you don't remember these things, they're essential potted plants shaped like a variety of animals, objects, and celebrities, laden with grass seeds that grow and look like hair and oh my god why is this a thing? Regardless, the product, first developed in the 70s, became popularized in the 90s and was advertised with a well-known jingle: ch-ch-ch-Chia! While Chia Pets are still sold today, they are no longer the cultural icon that they were in these earlier times.

And yet, for some reason, it was only this past week that the folks behind Chia Pets decided to try to trademark that famous jingle.

Standard Character Claim: No

Mark Drawing Type: 6 - NO DRAWING-SENSORY MARK

Description of the Mark: The mark consists of the sung words CH CH CH CHIA in the notes E4, E4, E4, A4, G4.

Now, while that trademark description does indeed look decidedly silly, it certainly is possible to trademark sounds and jingles. The bar for trademarking sounds is a bit higher than other marks, mostly centering on the public's association with a sensory mark and a product, but Chia Pets' jingle probably fits the bill.

This means that sound marks – just like visual trademarks – may be easily registered when they are:

“arbitrary, unique or distinctive and can be used in a manner so as to attach to the mind of the liste­ner and be awakened on later hearing in a way that would indicate for the listener that a particular product or service was coming from a particular, even if anonymous, source.”

It's worth noting that any jingle like the above would also be immediately covered by copyright protection upon creation. That's one of the many factors that has me wondering why in the world this trademark had to be applied for in 2020. Add to that the waning notoriety of Chia Pets and its jingle generally, along with my having never heard of anything remotely like any competitors in the "Clay planters for flowers and plants" industry trying to use the jingle, and this all becomes all the more confusing.

Why, after fifty years in business and decades of using this jingle, does it need to suddenly be protected by trademark law?

Filed Under: chia pet, jingle, trademark

Guy Sues Over 'Da Da Da Da Da Da.... CHARGE!' Jingle He Might Not Have Written

from the da-da-da-da-da-da....-SUE! dept

A few different folks sent over variations on this story about how a guy named Bobby Kent claims to have come up with the now ubiquitous "da da da da da da... CHARGE!" music in 1978. If you've been to a major sporting event in the US in the past few decades, you've almost certainly heard it. You can finds tons of examples on YouTube, but here's a decent one: Kent apparently was the musical director for the San Diego Chargers football team in 1978, and claims he came up with (and registered a copyright for) the song "Stadium Doo Dads," which apparently includes the same notes, though I cannot find a full version of the song anywhere to compare. Either way, Kent is now suing ASCAP for not paying him royalties for all the stadiums playing those six notes, and that he intends to sue every professional sports team in the US, with the exception of the Los Angeles Lakers, who coughed up $3,000 when he sent them a letter.

You can see the full lawsuit against ASCAP embedded below in all its glory. Of course, it does raise questions about whether or not these six simple notes really rise to the level of creativity required for a copyright. But, even if you accept that, there's another (big) problem. For years, it's been claimed that the true originator of the "da da da da da da... CHARGE!" concept was a dude named Tommy Walker, who was both a drum major and the field kicker for the USC Trojans in the late 1940s and claims to have come up with the basic jingle in 1946. Of course, others point out that, it's really built on an old calvary bugle call, with some reports pointing to a German WWI army manual that has the same six notes listed as number 20 "Battery." Others have pointed out that the (newly moved from Brooklyn) LA Dodgers picked up on using the charge call from USC in 1958 and it spread from there.

All of that history certainly calls into serious question the legitimacy of Kent's overall claims. When asked about this, Kent's lawyer says that the two songs have a different tempo:

Kent's attorney acknowledged that the USC song "does contain five notes that are close to the last five notes of the crescendo of Mr. Kent's song." But, he said, the notes are played at a different tempo.

In the end... I'm sorta left with the simple question: what kind of system do we have when there's now going to be legal fights over the "Charge!" jingle?

Filed Under: bobby kent, charge, jingle, sports, tommy walker

Another Example Of Copyright Law Gone Mad: Series Of Lawsuits Over Telephone Jingle

from the make-it-stop dept

This one's from a few months back, but still quite interesting. Danny submitted this story of a series of lawsuits between a musician and a town tourism board over a song the singer apparently wrote. The backstory is that the musician, Cheryl Janky, was a member of a doo wop band called Stormy Weather (perhaps that should have been a warning), who had, as a founder and singer, a guy named Henry Farag. Janky wrote a song called "Wonders of Indiana." With Farag's help, the song was modified to become "Lake County, Indiana," "a doo-wop ode to the border county that rhymes 'ethnic diversity' with 'Hoosier hospitality.'" Farag then did a deal with the tourism board of Lake County, who bought 1,500 copies of the band's CD to sell in its gift shop, and used the song as hold music for callers. The tourism board also had the band (with Janky in it) perform at the opening of of the tourism board's new center. That all happened in 1999.

In 2003, however, Janky left the band, and suddenly was pissed off about how "her" song was being used. She filed a lawsuit in 2003, and since then:

The case has spawned at least three lawsuits, thousands of dollars in judge-ordered sanctions against the woman's attorneys, a three-day trial, estimated legal fees of more than $500,000, reams of paperwork and a subpoena issued to a federal judge.

And for what? Farag notes that the band sold less than 2,000 CDs total (most of which seem to be from the tourism board's purchase). And yet, Janky continues to pursue the case, with her lawyer insisting she needs to do this to "stand up for her creative rights." Meanwhile, this is the same lawyer who apparently "has been sanctioned twice by separate judges in the case for filing frivolous claims and last month was ordered to put down a $5,000 deposit before filing more lawsuits on Janky's behalf 'to cover the high probability of additional sanctions.'"

Ah, the crazy things that a misunderstanding of copyright makes people do.

Filed Under: copyright, jingle, music