Current Insight Community Cases

Essential Datacenter Tips On Application Performance Monitoring

The Importance Of Skilled Immigrants To The American Economy

Help A New Kind of Music Label Revolutionize The Industry

Mandates To Buy American Should Be More Carefully Considered

Navigating The New Business World After This Recession

Check out our CwF + RtB experiment.
Brought to you by Floor64 and the Techdirt crew.

stories about: "little trees"
Too Much Free Time

Too Much Free Time

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
advertising, air freshener, trademark

Companies:
little trees



Little Trees Air Freshener Company Ads Warn People Not To Mess With Its Trademark

from the seems-a-bit-proactive dept

We've seen a variety of overly aggressive actions concerning trademarks lately that go well beyond the stated purpose (and the letter of the law) concerning trademarks. However, one of our readers, BendWeather, sent in something we hadn't seen before. He was reading the latest (paper) copy of PhotoShop User Magazine and discovered the following advertisement:

Little-Trees-Ad
Now, I have no problem with the company, Little Trees, that makes those "car-fresheners" enforcing their trademarks when there's a real violation of the trademark, but it seems quite odd to become so proactive that you would take out an ad specifically warning people that it's a trademark violation "no matter how you use it." That, of course, is false and a misstatement of trademark law... as is the information on Little Trees' own web page about its trademark, where the company incorrectly claims that "the law requires that we take action when someone is using them without permission."

That is not true. The law requires that a trademark holder actively police infringement on its trademarks and activity that would likely cause confusion or dilution of the trademark. That does not mean any use that is without permission. For example, in writing this post about Little Trees' trademark policy we did not ask permission, nor should we need it, since we are commenting on the policy itself. We are not competing with the company, confusing anyone as to the origins of the mark, or diluting the value of the mark, unless you consider explaining how the company is overly stating the rights associated with the mark as diminishing its value (which would be quite the legal argument).

Also, in looking at the ad, the company is being somewhat misleading in claiming that the image is "private property." It is not. It is covered by trademark, which is not the same thing as private property, and the company is doing a disservice to everyone claiming that they are the same thing.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..



Popular Posts
Poll

Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Add Techdirt RSS To Your Reader
rss Add Techdirt to your Bloglines
Add Techdirt to your Google Add Techdirt to your My Yahoo
Add Techdirt to your Netvibes Add Techdirt to your Newsgator
Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Older Stuff

Wednesday

10:27am: If Google Visitors Are Worthless, It's Only Because Newspaper Execs Don't Know What They're Doing (37)
9:01am: Multitasking Is Our Main Activity (15)
7:33am: Greed vs. Due Diligence: Another Case Of Startup Fraud? (4)
6:01am: Anti-Piracy Group In Spain Fined For Bad Faith Actions Against File Sharing Systems (13)
3:55am: ABA Journal's Patent Application To Score Interview With USPTO Boss David Kappos (17)
1:44am: Can Universities Make Sure That Drugs Based On Their Research Are Licensed Reasonably? (19)

Tuesday

9:21pm: Companies Realizing That Content Is Advertising Via Web Series (12)
7:01pm: Could You Prove That The Government Was Watching You Illegally? (38)
4:56pm: Reuters, AP Refuse To Cover Cricket Matches Over Restrictive Press Accreditation Rules (21)
3:21pm: Comparing File Sharing To Payola: Could Have Had That Promotion For Free (34)
1:56pm: Jury Says Fictional Character Can Be Libelous (28)
12:44pm: Spam King Alan Ralsky Gets Four Years In Jail (28)
11:39am: Publishers Getting The Wrong Message Over eBook Piracy (39)
10:28am: Calling For An Independent Invention Defense In Patents (27)
9:12am: Microsoft Tries To Silence Revelation Of Bing Cashback Flaws; Leads To Revelation Of Other Problems (43)
8:03am: Don't Blame Facebook For Some Kids Beating Up Another Student (61)
6:46am: Hulu Telling Sites To Stop Embedding So Much (44)
5:00am: Once Again, If The Gov't Has Data, It Will Be Abused (42)
2:53am: As Expected, Social Networking Generation Running For Office Face Their Permanent Record Online (32)
12:55am: IMAX Sues Cinemark For Building Competing System... While Being An IMAX Customer (14)

Monday

10:26pm: Filmmaker Allowed To Use The Name Rin Tin Tin To Describe Rin Tin Tin (6)
8:25pm: Senators Begin Questioning ACTA Secrecy (32)
6:34pm: Brazil E-Voting Machines Not Hacked... But Van Eck Phreaking Allowed Hacker To Record Votes (15)
5:08pm: FCC Doesn't Think The Lack Of Competition Is A Major Barrier To Broadband? (36)
3:49pm: Heads Of Major Movies Studios Claiming They Just Want To Help Poor Indie Films Harmed By Piracy (47)
2:38pm: USPTO Convinced By Amazon That Online Gift Giving Patent Is Legit (19)
1:31pm: Tiburon Approves Recording Every Car That Enters/Leaves... Despite More Evidence Of Traffic Camera Abuse In UK (90)
12:18pm: Label Exec Arrested For Not Using Twitter To Disperse Crowd At Mall To See Singer (53)
11:01am: Spanish Court Dismisses Complaint From Nintendo Against Counterfiet DS Cartridges, Since They Add Functionality (12)
9:55am: Dear PR People: If Your Exec Has A Comment, Our Comments Are Open (26)
More arrow
Quick Links
Close
E-mail It