EU General Court Refuses To Allow St. Andrews Links To Trademark 'St. Andrews' For All The Things

from the fore! dept

For those of us who have fallen in love with the world's most personally infuriating sport, golf, the name The St. Andrews Links Golf Course is of course quite notable. The famed "Cathedral of Golf" also happens to be located in a town of the same name, St. Andrews in Scotland. St. Andrews is a fairly common term in the naming of locations and famous landmarks. Despite this, The Saint Andrews Links went to the EU's Intellectual Property Office to request it be granted a trademark for "St. Andrews" in roughly every category, including broadly in apparel and sports goods. When that request was denied in 2016 on grounds that location names have high bars to clear to get trademarks and are therefore relatively rarely granted, St. Andrews Links took its case to Luxembourg on appeal.

There, the EU General Court dismissed the appeal, arguing again that "St. Andrews" is primarily a reference to the town of St. Andrews, not to any provider of the type of goods that St. Andrews Links wanted to hold trademarks for.

But having had its application to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) turned down in 2016, an appeal against the decision has now been dismissed by the EU General Court in Luxembourg.  According to official documents, the appeal board argued “the expression ‘St Andrews’ referred above all to a town known for its golf courses though not particularly for the manufacturing or marketing of clothing, footwear, headgear, games and playthings.”

The court said EU and UK law generally excludes the registration of geographical names as trade marks “where they designate specified geographical locations which are already famous, or are known for the category of goods or services concerned.”

In other words, the town itself is also well known and, because the mark applied for consisted of the name of that famous town, St. Andrews Links can't lock up "St. Andrews" for itself in a bunch of categories not directly related to its business. Readers here will likely be nodding along, understanding that this all makes perfect sense. The reason I'm highlighting all of this is because of how frustratingly rare it is for an intellectual property office and appeals court to get this so, so right. Too often, corporate wishes are simply granted, especially when dealing with an entity like St. Andrews Links, which is itself rather famous and is a point of pride for the region.

It sure would be nice if other IPOs applied the intent of the law this strictly.

Filed Under: geographic marks, golf, scotland, st. andrews, trademark
Companies: st. andrews links

Macy's, The Department Store Chain, Forces A Tiny Hair Salon In Scotland To Change Its Name

from the hair-apparent dept

Macy's, the enormous retail company famous for its enormous department stores, has been featured in our pages before throwing its weight around over trademark concerns. If you had thought that the company has ceased its trademark-bullying ways, a recent report featuring a tiny hair salon in Scotland named after the founding couple's daughter will disabuse you of this notion.

Jon and Kirsty Nelson named their West Lothian business Macys after their daughter, little imaging they would shortly face the wrath of corporate America. The couple received a letter from a London law firm acting on behalf of Cincinnati-based Macy’s, alleging trademark infringement.

Macy’s is worth £6bn, has almost 900 stores, stocks products by Ralph Lauren, Hugo Boss, and Calvin Klein, and sells mink fur coats for £8,500. Their Bathgate “rivals”, Macys Lounge, offer female customers a cut and blowdry for £30 while men can get a cut for £9, or £13 if they want a shampoo.

Now, it should be noted that Macy's department stores do include spas that provide hair and beauty services. The company does have valid trademark for these services as well. All that being said, the idea that there would be any true confusion in the marketplace between these department store spas and a tiny storefront salon in Bathgate is plainly absurd. To drive this point home, the nearest Macy's department store is several thousand miles away.

But, as we've mentioned many times before, trademark bullying works. The couple behind the salon announced recently that they would change the name of their business. Though, for those that appreciate a dash of trolling in their lives, the change the couple made might not be exactly what Macy's had in mind.

“ We wanted to fight this battle, David and Goliath style, but we did not have the funding or resources available to do so and were somewhat backed into a corner to ‘angrily’ agree to their terms of changing our name.

“We give you : MACIZ Lounge.

“This will be our new trading name from March 2018 going forward. It is still similar to what we currently use.”

And, so, the full weight of the Macy's legal efforts managed to get a couple of letters changed, and that's about it. The pronunciation for the business remains the same. Most of the name remains. Don't get me wrong, this is a massive pain in the ass that costs very real money, and a situation the couple should never have had to go through, but the results of the trademark bullying are rather beautifully silly.

Not that patrons of the salon are laughing.

Social media users wanted to show their support for the salon and were quick to show their outrage at the American outfit.

Erin Thomson said: “And here was me thinking you guys were a branch of Macy’s famous NY department store opening in Bathgate and specialising in haircuts. Silly me. Maciz Lounge sounds fab”

Helen Wilson posted: “It’s an absolute disgrace a huge organisation can victimise a small family business.”

Jamie Cameron commented: “Clearly they know you guys are on the road to world domination and are terrified. Stuff them guys.”

Macy's may not care about these responses, given that, again, these are not even potential customers, since there are no Macy's department stores anywhere nearby. Still, from a branding perspective, this isn't a great way to make the brand friends around the globe.

Filed Under: bullying, department store, salon, scotland, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: macy's

YouTuber Who Trained His Girlfriend's Dog To Be A Nazi Facing Hate Crime Charges In Scotland

from the there's-nothing-not-ridiculous-about-that-headline dept

Across the sea in the UK, offensive speech is still getting people jailed. An obnoxious person who trained his girlfriend's dog to perform the Nazi salute and respond excitedly to the phrase "gas the Jews" is looking at possible jail time after posting these exploits to YouTube under the name Count Dankula. According to Scotland resident Markus Meechan, it was the "least cute" thing he could train his girlfriend's dog to do, apparently in response to her constant gushing about the dog's cuteness.

Meechan's video racked up 3 million views on YouTube, but it really didn't start making news until local police started paying attention.

That April, soon after the video was posted, police knocked on Meechan’s door in Coatbridge, a town in North Lanarkshire, Scotland, he told Alex Jones. The officers told him that he was being charged with a hate crime and that the video could be seen as promoting violence against Jews. They told him to change his clothes, took pictures of his apartment and hauled him off to jail.

There's is no doubt the video is offensive. But offended people have plenty of options to counter Meechan's speech with their own. Unfortunately, the 2003 law being used against him has ensured this counterspeech is solely taking the form of testimony against Meechan.

During the trial, Ephraim Borowski, director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, who lost family members during the Holocaust, said the video was “grossly offensive. It stuns me that anyone should think it is a joke," he said, according to The Times.

"My immediate reaction is that there is a clear distinction to be made between an off-hand remark and the amount of effort that is required to train a dog like that. I actually feel sorry for the dog.”

Meechan says he has no hate for Jews and did it solely to annoy his girlfriend. It was recorded, which means it was meant to entertain YouTube users, some of which likely viewed the video as generally supportive of gassing Jews (which may have helpfully aligned with their own views on the subject). But speech can be offensive without being a hate crime, and the general criminalization of offensive subject matter isn't doing much to curb actual racially-motivated criminal activity. All it's really doing is ensuring UK courts receive a steady stream of defendants who've done nothing more dangerous than publicly display their questionable opinions and terrible senses of humor.

The YouTuber is now facing a year in prison because an unfunny prank came to the attention of local police. Prosecutors are busy trying to prove intent, which should be an uphill battle. Meechan has already issued a public apology, as well as a follow-up video further distancing his distasteful prank from any support for anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, prosecutors are alleging the sole reason for the recording was to cause fear and stir up hatred. That really doesn't seem to be the case despite several bigots deciding the video's release meant they should inundate the local Jewish community council with hateful messages.

Laws enforced in this fashion don't instill a greater respect for rule of law or those who craft bad laws with good intentions. Fifteen years have passed since this law took effect and it's certainly hasn't shown much return on investment. Instead of stomping out hate, it's being used to carve holes in speech protections, ensuring the merely offensive will be given the same punishments as those who actually incite hatred and violent acts.

Filed Under: dog, hate speech, markus meechan, nazi salute, scotland, uk, viral video

Scottish Sheriff Awards Couple Compensation For 'Distress' Caused By Neighbor's Use Of CCTV

from the effort-to-oppress dept

We've written plenty about CCTV here on Techdirt, and its creeping normalization around the world, but particularly in the UK. So it's good to read a story on the legal news site outlaw.com about a rather unusual ruling from a Scottish court pushing back against the use of an intrusive CCTV system. It concerns a dispute in Edinburgh between the individuals Nahid Akram and Debbie and Tony Woolley. The latter couple live above a guest house run by Akram. For various reasons, both parties decided to install CCTV systems, but with rather different scope:

While the Woolley's equipment "records images of their own external property only", Akram installed "video and audio recording equipment" which allowed her, and her husband, to monitor comings and goings at the Woolley's property and to listen in to conversations in their private garden, according to the ruling. The equipment used by Akram was capable of storing five days' worth of data at any one time.

The [Scottish court's] Sheriff described "the regime of surveillance" that the Woolleys were subjected to as "extravagant, unjustified and highly visible" and as "an effort to oppress". He said that the Woolleys and their family had "suffered considerable distress" since Akram's equipment had been installed in about October 2013 and that it is "difficult to conceive" a more intrusive case of surveillance.

Until recently, suffering "distress" from CCTV would not have been enough in order to receive damages: there needed to be an actual financial loss. But an important 2015 case in the UK involving Google ruled that:

the claimants can claim for distress without having to prove pecuniary loss. This greatly increases the scope for compensation claims in the future given an invasion of privacy will rarely be accompanied by actual monetary loss.

Aside from the award of over $21,000 to the Woolleys, the Sheriff's judgment is also noteworthy for how he spelled out the distress they suffered:

"They have all been severely restricted in the use and enjoyment of their own home," Sheriff Ross said. "They voluntarily restrict their external movements. They restrict their conversations, both inside and outside their home, as they are aware that they are being recorded and do not know the extent of the coverage."

Although he is talking about surveillance in the physical world, his concerns have obvious parallels in the online world, which is under growing government surveillance, not least in the UK. Already, some people are starting to restrict their digital movements and their conversations as they are "aware that they are being recorded and do not know the extent of the coverage." The question is: why should such "distressing" surveillance be punished in the real world, but permitted in the digital one?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: cctv, privacy, scotland

Scottish Law Enforcement Also Apparently Hooked Up To NSA/GCHQ's Data Firehose

from the metadata-on-everyone...-for-everyone! dept

The fun thing about leaked documents is that they almost always reveal something more than just the focal point. The leaked reports that showed British intelligence agencies to be drowning in data also exposed a previously hidden part of the UK intelligence apparatus.

The documents confirm that a little-known policing body called the Scottish Recording Centre (SRC) was given access to information logs that includes millions of communications data including phone activity, internet histories, and social media behaviour on Facebook.

The confirmation that UK state spy agency GCHQ ran a specific programmed, called “MILKWHITE”, to share data with devolved policing and tax authorities is the first Snowden leak to directly implicate Scottish authorities in the controversial policy of ‘bulk data’ collection.

And just like that, the "obscure Scotland-based surveillance unit" is no longer obscure. It's safe to say most of Scotland's citizens were unaware of its existence until the latest revelations. While there's probably only been a small bump in general public awareness, it has mobilized activists and given them the ammo they need to question their representatives.

Richard Haley, chair of human rights group Scotland Against Criminalising Communities, has said that the SRC raises “very serious questions”.

Haley asked: “The Scottish Recording Centre might be unknown to most of us, but the Scottish Government must be familiar with it because of its role in legally authorised interception. Did the Scottish Government know of its involvement in MILKWHITE? If not, why not? And if they did, why didn't they sound the alarm? And for that matter, what is the Scottish Recording Centre? A real set of offices and computers, or just an organisational concept?”

Haley and others are seeking answers. They likely won't be getting them any time soon. The Police Service of Scotland -- which partakes of the SRC data haul -- says it won't discuss "intelligence matters." GCHQ added its own boilerplate in response, stating it also won't discuss "intelligence matters," and that everything it does is subject to multiple legal authorities and strict oversight: two claims leaked documents keep refuting.

Those claims are even refuted within this article about the leaked documents. Michael Gray of CommonSpace points out that the Police Service of Scotland previously spied on communications between journalists in violation of the law. The service has also been linked to targeting of political activists -- none of which sounds particularly "lawful," much less "authorised, necessary, and appropriate," to borrow a phrase from GCHQ's non-comment.

Filed Under: gchq, mass surveillance, nsa, scotland, surveillance

Police In Scotland Tweet Out Plans To 'Investigate' Any 'Offensive Comments' On Social Media

from the really-guys? dept

So we just had a story about a 19-year-old guy being arrested for making a (bad) joke tweet about an out of control garbage truck. The Northumbria police who arrested Ross Loraine are insisting that the bad joke was a "malicious communication" under The Communications Act. Many people have been calling out this rather ridiculous attack on free speech, but police in Scotland seem to be doubling down. They just sent out the following tweet: If you can't read it, it says:

Please be aware that we will continue to monitor comments on social media & any offensive comments will be investigated.

In other words: "fuck free speech -- if you say something we deem offensive, we can arrest you." So far, nearly all of the reply tweets seem to be mocking the police. Here are just a few examples: And, my personal favorite: But, seriously, even beyond just arresting that other guy, who thought it was a good idea for the police to officially tweet out that it would investigate the public for free speech comments they make on social media? Do they really think that chilling free speech is a good idea in Scotland? I've been to Scotland a few times and really enjoyed it -- in particular the openness to discussing a variety of ideas. Trying to stifle free speech so directly seems like a ridiculous plan.

Filed Under: free speech, malicious communication, offensive comments, police, ross loraine, scotland

The Streisand Effect Wins Again: Scottish Council Reverses Ban On 9-Year Old Blogging About School Lunches

from the and-gets-her-lots-of-traffic dept

NeverSeconds is a blog by a 9-year old primary school student, Martha Payne, photographing and blogging about the school lunches she's served daily. The blog, which only started on April 30th, apparently got a small bit of news coverage... leading the local regional council to issue a ban on the blog, because "media coverage of the blog had led catering staff to fear for their jobs." Except... then the internet exploded in protest, and the council (after one weak attempt to defend its position) changed its mind and issued a statement which "supersedes all other council statements on this matter already issued." In the statement, from the head of the council, it is said that the ban should be lifted (not that it has been) and that "there is no place for censorship in this Council."

That said, the statement still seems upset about the news reporting on the school lunches:

But we all must also accept that there is absolutely no place for the type of inaccurate and abusive attack on our catering and dining hall staff, such as we saw in one newspaper yesterday which considerably inflamed the situation. That, of course, was not the fault of the blog, but of the paper.

We need to find a united way forward so I am going to bring together our catering staff, the pupils, councillors and council officials - to ensure that the council continues to provide healthy, nutrious and attractive school meals. That "School Meals Summit" will take place later this summer.

Either way, the end result is a hell of a lot more people are aware of Martha's blog (and the kind of meals her school serves). The BBC says that in the past couple days, she's received over 3 million visits to the site. The BBC even put up a separate article explaining how the case is a perfect example of the Streisand Effect, and how attempts to censor content backfire. And... just as in the case with The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk, this Streisand Effect is being used to turn an attempt at censorship into a way to raise money for charity. Martha put up a crowdfunding page to try to raise £7,000 for a charity and it's already made over £48,000.

Filed Under: martha payne, scotland, streisand effect

Did Scotland Accidentally Create A 'Use It Or Lose It' Copyright Law?

from the wouldn't-that-be-interesting dept

Michael Scott points us to the news that, via some oddities within Scottish laws, the Scottish Law Commission is realizing that its current regulations may actually mean that there's a "use-it-or-lose-it" provision that applies to copyright law. I don't quite understand all the details (so feel free to chime in if you're familiar with Scottish law), but it sounds like the folks in Scotland are realizing that a law they have on the books concerning property does not clearly state that it does not apply to things like copyright -- and that law includes a 20 year use-it-or-lose-it rule. Thus, by not exempting copyright, it may automatically be included. This seems to be upsetting to some, but I find it rather amusing that the only reason why copyright is even considered "property" is because those who wanted to pretend copyright was something more than a limited government granted monopoly started calling it property. Yet, now, they may be getting upset that they might have to abide by similar rules concerning property. Of course, the Scottish discussion focuses on how to "fix" this -- and there's a problem there, since apparently, the Scottish Parliament does not have authority over copyright issues in Scotland.

Filed Under: copyright, scotland

Don't Be A Jerk To A Minor In Louisiana Or Say Anything Sexually Suggestive In Scotland

from the controlling-behavior dept

Back in May we wrote about how Louisiana was the latest state to try to pass overly broad anti-"cyberbullying" legislation, that would make it illegal to say anything online that might "embarrass" anyone under 17. With a few modifications that law has now been passed. They (thankfully) removed the "embarrass or cause emotional distress" part, but still left in that it's illegal to communicate "with intent to torment or intimidate" which seems pretty broad. No more trash talking on IM, kids.

Meanwhile, Glyn Moody points us to a new law in Scotland that outlaws "indecent communication" online. The law says you can't say anything sexually related to someone without first getting consent. While, the intentions are good, the reality is that this will almost certainly lead to problems:

In our culture, it is not normal to ask people for permission to say something sexual during the course of a facebook chat or a conversation in a bar. "Do you mind if I deploy an innuendo" just wouldn't sound right. And quite frankly it shouldn't.

Whether people get off with each other in bars, or engage in mundane msn conversations that degenerate into bad internet sex, people frequently make the transition from polite conversation into something more erotic. And this very often necessitates somebody saying something on a whim, somebody communicating some sexual feeling in the hope that it will be reciprocated. And sometimes that means saying something under circumstances that don't quite match up to a "reasonable belief in consent".

The more and more governments try to regulate how people talk to each other online, the more and more ridiculous it's going to look.

Filed Under: cyberbullying, free expression, louisiana, scotland

School District Considers 'Anti-Piracy' Education Campaign Based On Anti-Drug Education Campaigns

from the just-say-buy? dept

Forget "just say no," and say hello to "just say buy." Copycense points out that some Scottish schools seem to think that unauthorized sharing of music and movies is analogous to using drugs, and deserves a similar sort of education plan. Of course, the entertainment industry would be more than happy to provide any one of its numerous propaganda educational curricula for the task. The problem, of course, is that if you are at all familiar with the subject, you would realize that unauthorized file sharing is not a societal problem like "drug use," but is a business model issue. Of course, given how (un)successful the "war on drugs" has been, perhaps it's silly to worry about an equally ridiculous "war on piracy."

Filed Under: copyright, drugs, education, propaganda, schools, scotland