RSS
Richard Branson Claims People May Confuse 'I Am Not A Virgin Jeans' With His Virgin Properties
from the er,-they're-saying-they're-not-virgin,-richard... dept
Forbes has an article about how lawyers representing Richard Brandson's Virgin property have sent a letter to "I Am Not A Virgin," a small jeans company in NYC, complaining about its attempt to register the trademark on its name in the US. The Forbes report falsely states that it's a copyright issue (seriously, don't people check these things?) and also seems to miss that the letter is about a planned opposition to a trademark registration. Peter Heron, I Am Not A Virgin's founder, put together an amusing video reading the letter and questioning Branson's claims:
My favorite bit is him asking if Branson thinks that people walking by "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" in the store are likely to be confused by it. In fact, you could argue that the likelihood of confusion (or dilution, since that's in play too) is extremely minimal here. Hell, the entire name of the company is claiming that it's not a "virgin," though I'd imagine that's a reference to the more common definition of the word, rather than Branson's widespread brand. Considering that one way companies often avoid tradmeark issues is to clearly state that they are "not affiliated" with a particular trademark, how much stronger of a not affiliated statement would Heron need than having the very brand claim it's not the other brand?
To be fair, the letter itself is much more on the friendly side of the spectrum, when it comes to legal nastygrams. It doesn't take a completely hardline stance, tries to express a common viewpoint (applauding the support for "the planet" and entrepreneurs), and even makes some (kinda silly) suggestions for alternate names ("I Am Not Chaste," "I Am Not Pure" -- to which Heron suggests "how about 'I Am Not Made By Richard Branson'). But, it doesn't go to Jack Daniels' level of friendliness, in making it clear that no change will lead the company to officially seek to have Heron's trademark (which he's had for 3.5 years) revoked by the USPTO.
It's also clear that Heron is milking this for all its worth as a marketing strategy (which is a pretty reasonable strategy, given the situation). But that raises more questions about why Virgin/Branson even went down this road in the first place. They had to know that they were just asking for a public shaming.
To be fair, the letter itself is much more on the friendly side of the spectrum, when it comes to legal nastygrams. It doesn't take a completely hardline stance, tries to express a common viewpoint (applauding the support for "the planet" and entrepreneurs), and even makes some (kinda silly) suggestions for alternate names ("I Am Not Chaste," "I Am Not Pure" -- to which Heron suggests "how about 'I Am Not Made By Richard Branson'). But, it doesn't go to Jack Daniels' level of friendliness, in making it clear that no change will lead the company to officially seek to have Heron's trademark (which he's had for 3.5 years) revoked by the USPTO.
It's also clear that Heron is milking this for all its worth as a marketing strategy (which is a pretty reasonable strategy, given the situation). But that raises more questions about why Virgin/Branson even went down this road in the first place. They had to know that they were just asking for a public shaming.
I have an app...
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
I’m looking for policy...
Policy Resources: Data Privacy & Security
Application Developers Alliance Applauds Schumer Plan To Introduce Patent Legislation
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hot girls wrestling in mud in a pool made of piezoelectric materials. The mechanical energy created could generate enough electricity to power my house lamp for 5 minutes.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Won't work. Who needs a house lamp when you have two hot girls wrestling in mud.
I'll be in my bunk.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(And isn't it kinda funny how the actual Virgin here is the one doing the phucking...)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Virgin, Windows, Apple and more
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Companies who use common words as trademarks have chosen a mark that has already suffered a form of dilution, and therefore their ability to claim exclusive use should be weakened.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is simple.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Branson seems deluded here...
Pop quiz - when was the last time you heard this conversation:
"Hey man, did you finally do the deed with Veronica?"
"No, I'm still a mercedes."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Branson seems deluded here...
I'm not a virgin makes sense in a world where Virgin did not exist. Now "I am not a virgin TV" makes a given amount of sense pre Virgin but makes significantly more sense post Virgin and as such I think could be argued to be a trade mark problem.
That said I don't think trademarks should be given on single existing words full stop.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, lest we forget, Virgin Cola:
"Hey dude, buy me some cola, would you?"
"Sure thing!" *buys Coca Cola*
"No you idiot! I wanted Virgin Cola! This hipster party's ruined!"
I think it's safe to say there was more chance of confusion there...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not a Harley.
I am not an Otis.
I can keep going. In each case, a major trade name was used, yet they do have OTHER meanings.
Branson's company is right here. Trademarks need to be zealous protected, otherwise their scope may be limited and their use in the end termed generic.
Personally, I took the t-shirt as a 1% type protest shirt, claiming not to be "the man". I got the Virgin media connection right away.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And I personally didn't. I took it to mean 'I have had sex before'. What now? What if there is no Virgin Media connection? What if the guy actually did mean 'I have had sex before'?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also don't think you can buy those jeans as it would be false advertising - only a 40-year old virgin would not think of the sexual reference immediately (wait - can I make a legitimate reference that happens to now be the title of a movie or because they made a movie I can no longer use that phrase? So Dazed and Confused about this... crap! I can't be both of those at the same time anymore either! Fuck this, I'm going to Whitecastle... damnit!)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The one that will REALLY get you in trouble:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Holy Guacamole! I heard fucken beeps come out when you said that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm launching my company soon. I'll make millions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Up next
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine the publicity the guy got with this stunt? Probably making tons of cash already. Lame.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ironically I tend to agree that Branson's lawyers unwantingly fed the troll with their seemingly overreaching legalese...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or maybe, just maybe, I'm saying I'm not a bad person. Gee, it's almost like some words have meaning outside the corporate landscape!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Trademarks only cover a particular domain
Does Virgin sell clothes?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademarks only cover a particular domain
That's what I'm wondering also. Unless I'm not searching hard enough, I can't find any indication of the Virgin Group of Companies selling clothes under the Virgin brand either.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes the Strings are the same
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
He's only Human
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a saying...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm waiting
Sue Al Qaeda for promising "72 Virgins" if you blow yourself to bits in a public place.....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Knew!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment