Using Trademark Law To Stop Free Speech
from the first,-we-shoot-all-the... dept
The folks over at Public Citizen Litigation Group continue to fight the good fight against corporations and lawyers who are clearly misusing trademark law to bully individuals or organizations they don't like. This is the same group who we recently covered supporting a woman who dared to sell the shampoo bottle on eBay that she had legally bought, and the law firm who was accused of trademark infringement by a railway company for having paintings of various trains (which they commissioned) shown on their website. In that case, it was clearly not a trademark violation at all (you can use trademarks in art), but one where the railway firm was upset that the law firm helped in cases involving injured railway employees. It seems that same sort of thinking is at work in the latest legal issue Public Citizen is involved in. It revolves around an environmental group that created an effigy of the governor of Texas kissing a smokestack. On the smokestack were the logos of various firms accused of polluting. It's pretty clear protest speech, and hardly a violation of trademark, but don't try explaining that to the lawyers who sent the nastygram to the group. When Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy sent a letter to the company's lawyer, re-explaining the basics of trademark law (especially the part about how it's perfectly legal to use a company's logo in criticizing that company), the lawyer simply responded to Levy by saying he "looked forward to meeting [him] personally." Why let something like the actual law get in the way of intimidation tactics?






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Law? What law?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wow!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law? What law?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
the law...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
seriously
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: seriously
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I don't get it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law? What law?
i think you misspelled expensive.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How dare you contradict me! Ill slap you silly???
Vague threats like that are.. are... I'm at a loss for words, even most children are not that lame.
Perhaps the correct answer would be
"Yes, lets meet at the review board, then thy can sort you out properly as it's obvious that you have no business being a lawyer."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment