Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   The eejit (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:01am

   
   

   Here's a plan; why doesn't the Save the Earth foundation endorse what Honda is trying to do, instead of litigating?
   
   Oh wait, that's the SENSIBLE option.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Jon Renaut (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:22am

   
   

   Bought vs drew the shirts?

   I assume Honda didn't actually buy t-shirts with the slogan on them, but actually drew them in their video editing program or whatever. Would it make a difference if they had purchased a bunch of shirts and used them in the ads? Would that shift the liability to any t-shirt vendor who used the slogan without a license? Honda probably still has the deepest pockets, though.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:29am

   
   

   Re: Bought vs drew the shirts?

   "I assume Honda didn't actually buy t-shirts with the slogan on them, but actually drew them in their video editing program or whatever."
   
   Why would you assume that?
   
   This is the new world of trademark litigation, where you can shut down anything in which your trademark appears. Documentary film makers have been dealing with this headache for years.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:30am

   
   

   How do you find out -

   - how much of the foundations funds go toward saving the earth and how much goes to "expenses"---Neal Pargman's pockets.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Jon Renaut (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:35am

   
   

   Re: Re: Bought vs drew the shirts?

   Seems like it would be a ton easier. They already have to draw the fade between shirts, why not draw all of it? But I don't know anything about video editing, so I could be totally wrong.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   kevjohn (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:43am

   
   

   goes the other way too

   When is the Destroy the Earth Foundation going to sue Hummer for trademark infringement?
   
   I kid, I kid.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Moron in an Anti-Mike Costume, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:45am

   
   

   Yeah, I always associate the auto industry with saving the earth and environmentalism. I mean, isn't it such an obvious connection?

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Johnny Canada, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:50am

   
   

   Who heard of 'Save the Earth'

   I never heard of that group, Save the Earth, before this came up.
   
   Honda should bill them for advertising

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Thomas (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 10:03am

   
   

   They are more concerned..

   about making money than they are about saving the earth. Most of those groups really just want to pad their own pockets.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 10:05am

    
    

    Isn't all they have to do is add some stupid blurb at the bottom that says this commercial is not an advertisement or endorsement for the "Save the Earth Foundation". All trademarks shown belong to he respective rights holders. There problem solved right?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    taoareyou (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 10:17am

    
    

    Although something as generic as "save the Earth" as a trademark is inane, why didn't they just say "save the planet"? Or has that been trademarked, too? How about: "save the 3rd generally large object in current orbit around our sun"?
    
    It's amusing that nobody is allowed to save the Earth now unless they are authorized.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    pferland, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 10:31am

    
    

    Re:

    save 3'rd Rock from The Sun?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 10:50am

    
    

    Save the Earth ....
    Use Clean Coal ....
    
    ;)

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    taoareyou (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 10:51am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    Save the only known celestial body which bears civilizations which prevent us from mentioning any intent to save the home of said civilizations.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    vyvyan, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 11:06am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    you stole words from mah mouth!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    James T Kirk, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 11:37am

    
    

    Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    dwind (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 11:55am

    
    

    I'm gonna patent
    Beam me up Scotty,
    Tree Huggers,
    trademark litigation, etc.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 12:09pm

    
    

    Re:

    No no, first you trademark those terms. Then you write a book about how you trademarked those terms to get a copyright on them. Then you patent the buisness model of getting trademarks to sue and writing tell all books about your legal battles. Tripple whammy.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 1:08pm

    
    

    Dammit I can't save the Earth because I'm gonna get sued.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Jeff, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

    
    

    Save the Earth? Forget that.

    Littering kicks ass.
    
    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=litter

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Roehamster, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 1:35pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    Kudos, buddy!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    shmengie (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

    
    

    in protest...

    i hope the earth DOESN'T get saved. that'll show 'em...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 2:32pm

    
    

    We should think about it more charitably

    Save the earth is a good and right cause. We should have tolerance and perhaps think a little more charitably in cases like this. Honda is just using the saying to make money, Save the Earth is trying to accomplish something good and noble. We MUST err on the side of good causes not large corporations if this world is to survive.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    interval, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 2:37pm

    
    

    Re:

    Its a loud 'n clear example of what Save the Earth is REALLY all about. Its a pack of wackos who can't make it in a free market, and didn't want to teach.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    interval, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 2:44pm

    
    

    Re: We should think about it more charitably

    Ok, assuming your serious, how does litigating a ridiculous trademark infringement (and its been show many times that these lawsuits aren't even legal in many cases, although this one MAY have some "merit" (it makes me sick to even use the term here) further that "good and noble" cause? Sounds like another money grab to me. Seems like the good and noble thing to do would have been to let Honda alone. The ad might have been seen by millions of people with the guy's t-shirt right square in the middle of it all. Now its just an ugly footnote in legal history and makes Save the Earth look like another greedy corp. Some times the litigator needs to err on the side of good.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Valkor, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 3:32pm

    
    

    No video?

    Useless without a link to the commercial.
    That would explain the focus on the shirt in question. Was it totally incidental, or did they say something like "Save the Earth. We do." while pointing to their shirts or an on screen logo.
    Give us the moron in a hurry test!

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    John Spielman, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 5:34pm

    
    

    Re: We should think about it more charitably

    Umm, yeah...Save the Earth Foundation is trying to accomplish something good.
    That's why they're concerned about an ad using the phrase "save the earth"?
    If they gave a crap about saving the earth, they wouldn't give a crap about an ad that suggests people "save the earth."

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 5:35pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Bought vs drew the shirts?

    Hrm? I haven't seen the commercial in question. There may be more going on than I assumed. Have a link?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    

    Zee (profile), Jan 27th, 2010 @ 9:51pm

    
    

    Geez! Why is everyone is suing everyone these days

    And for Pete's sake...Honda was trying to advertise its Save the Earth business plan. Save the Earth foundation actually gains exposure from it.
    
    The worst they could do is ask Honda to stop airing the ads.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    

    known coward, Jan 28th, 2010 @ 11:31am

    
    

    As a moron in a hurry.

    I know phrases can be trademarked. But even I do not think honda is in the earth saving business. I would not confuse honda with a foundation dedicated to saving the earth.
    
    I am sure Honda would be happy to take my money, but they would actually give me something in return.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

31.  

    

    terre, Jan 28th, 2010 @ 10:07pm

    
    

    trademark holders are required to defend it or lose it

    Honda is not as harmful to life on Earth as Monsanto or Chevron, but they are all large corporations that advertise how green they are.
    
    If Save The Earth Foundation didn't protect their trademark they could lose the right to control the trademark. Consider the reasons Save the Earth might have to protect that trademark:
    
    First, the legal requirement to take action if another company uses your trademark to promote themselves. It causes confusion, which is one of the basic tenets of trademark law. (Does Save The Earth endorse Honda? Is Honda partnering with Save The Earth to do good?
    
    Next is monetary value of the trademark. It costs money to get and maintain a trademark, and Save The Earth has had their trademark since 1972. Trademarks gain value over time (Coke's is worth billions). Trademark infringement is basically theft - of intellectual property.
    
    Trademark holders can license their image. Honda can afford to pay a license fee. My question would be, did they offer to pay a licensing fee and were turned down by Save The Earth (who surely spent more time on the question than you and me). Or did Honda blow off the little environmental organization and not pay a fair licensing fee? Or did the ad agency throw the phrase on there without researching it, and Honda's PR people missed it too?
    
    Honda is doing a lot to develop fuel-efficient cars. At the same time, someone needs to hold the greenwashing corporations accountable. A trademark on Save The Earth is one way to do that. Check out thegreenlifeonline.org for their a Greenwasher of the Month.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

32.  

    

    rlsimmonsjr (profile), Jan 29th, 2010 @ 8:25am

    
    

    Honda Infringed on Save The Earth

    Of course Save the Earth (STE) foundation sued. It does imply an endorsement by them. It would be seen more clearly if a less attractive and popular company was using their (STE) trademark. For example, if a Japanese dolphin-killing company or a baby-seal hunter group were to advertise using a t-shirt with STE on the actors in the commercial. Automobile ARE one of the main polluters on earth. It is their (STE) right, whether you agree with their decision or not, to choose which products they endorse. It is not a frivolous lawsuit. I'm surprised I keep seeing so many right-wing types on tech sites.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment