Trademark

by Timothy Geigner


Filed Under:
golf, parody, trademark

Companies:
titleist



Titleist Tees Up Lawsuit Against Parody Clothier Because Golf Doesn't Have A Sense Of Humor

from the fore! dept

Back in the more innocent era of the early 2010s, you may recall that we discussed a series of delightful trademark disputes between clothier North Face and a couple of guys who started a business first called South Butt (later changed to Butt Face). In those series of posts, we discussed two conflicting facts: trademark lawsuits against parody operators such as this are extremely hard to win in court... except that those same lawsuits are crazy expensive to fight, so the parody operators typically just cave and settle. It's one of those corners of the law in which the very framework of the legal system virtually ensures that the proper legal conclusion is never reached. Yay.

It seems that North Face's peers in the clothing industry share its disdain for these parody companies. Titleist, for instance, recently filed a trademark and dilution lawsuit against a company called I Made Bogey, suggesting that the following example of its product both will confuse the public as to its origins and will tarnish Titleist's reputation.


Now, if you want to make the point that the hats and other items with this same branding aren't funny, go ahead. I'm right there with you. It's not even particularly clever. That said, it's also not the case that anyone is going to view this stuff as anything other than what it actually is: a parody of the notably poshly-presented golf brand. In fact, the joke only works, insofar as it does at all, if a person realizes that the parody pokes fun at the polite and often Waspy culture of golf. In other words, none of this is a thing were it not easily differentiated from Titleist's brand. For that very reason, attacks on parody like this have a heavy legal load to tow up a large mountain of precedent.

In the suit, Titleist claims both trademark infringement and dilution. For dilution to stick, it must show that I Made Bogey’s hats tarnish Titleist’s reputation or blurs its fame. For trademark infringement, however, Titleist must show that consumers would be confused by the two logos. “They would have to show that people would think Titleist is making hats” with the sexually explicit misspelling, said Tobin, the attorney. And that would be pretty difficult, she said.

And, yet, despite all of that, conventional wisdom suggests that this will all be settled out of court before the lawsuit progresses much further. The cost to fight this fight is likely to be too much for I Made Bogey to shoulder.

That doesn’t mean I Made Bogey is necessarily going to prevail, though. Trademark suits are expensive to defend, and there’s no guarantee the maker of Titties hats will come out on top. If you want a lewd golf hat, act sooner rather than later.

And, whatever your opinion of I Made Bogey's products, that's too bad. Taste is not really at issue when it comes to protecting parody, an important form of speech. Defenders of free speech need to be able to keep their spines when opportunities to defend speech they don't like arise. This is certainly one of those times. Abusing trademark law and playing pretend about public confusion to silence offensive speech is an action without any virtue.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2017 @ 7:01pm

    Trademark prohibits some speech. (I cringe expecting even that to be just trivially contradicted, though it's the topic theme!)

    It's not necessarily bad when for a company that makes physical products. Though I'd outlaw golf entirely -- er, I digress already. Anyhoo, focus on the word "dilution". This bunch of yahoos as usual has NOTHING except the "parody" by association with the Titleist brand for ANY sales. You state that yourself. They're totally dependent on the prior association, and must therefore DILUTE the trademark.

    Hole in one, which is par for me. Next case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 26 Jul 2017 @ 7:31pm

      Re: Trademark prohibits some speech. (I cringe expecting even that to be just trivially contradicted, though it's the topic theme!)

      By your logic, all parodies of existing trademarks must be outlawed, as they all depend on prior association with and “dilution” of an existing trademark. That sounds like a hell of a lot of unconstitutional prior restraint.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2017 @ 9:15pm

        Re: Re: Trademark prohibits some speech. (I cringe expecting even that to be just trivially contradicted, though it's the topic theme!)

        I am having a hard time figuring out what tgey are parodying. Male golfers with boobs? That golf is sexist?

        Mostly just looks like trying to make a buck off of someone else good name.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 26 Jul 2017 @ 10:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The quality of the parody, such as it is, does not negate the fact that it is a parody. And unless Titleist can prove that this parody actually harms or dilutes the Titleist brand (which did not seem likely before Titleist filed the lawsuit and gave the parody a bunch of attention it did not have before), the company has no basis for blocking the parody.

          But Titleist will win anyway because it has the resources to win a war of attrition.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jul 2017 @ 9:36pm

        Prior restraint v subsequent punishment [was Re: Re: Trademark prohibits some speech...]

        That sounds like a hell of a lot of unconstitutional prior restraint.

        Why would it be —your word— “like” a prior restraint?

        Alexander v United States (1993)

        While we may have given a broader definition to the term "prior restraint" than was given to it in English common law,[Note 2] our decisions have steadfastly preserved the distinction between prior restraints and subsequent punishments.


        [Note 2] The doctrine of prior restraint has its roots in the 16th- and 17th-century English system of censorship. Under that system, all printing presses and printers were licensed by the government, and nothing could lawfully be published without the prior approval of a government or church censor. . . . Beginning with Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (1931), we expanded this doctrine to include not only licensing schemes requiring speech to be submitted to an administrative censor for prepublication review, but also injunctions against future speech issued by judges. . . .

        (Emphasis added.)

        Why are you saying that an expansive theory of trademark dilution —going so far as to ban all parody— why are you saying that sounds “like” a prior restraint?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Technonsense, 26 Jul 2017 @ 7:04pm

    Guess that settles it.

    When North Face pulled their crap, I vowed never to purchase from the company; I've thus far stuck to it.

    Looks like I'll be switching golf brands. Maybe Pinnacle or Callaway Golf would appreciate a new customer who loses 24-36 balls per outing?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 26 Jul 2017 @ 10:42pm

    They're just pissed.

    They're just pissed that most of us would rather pay for Titties than Tiltleist.

    Apparently Titleist doesn't have the balls to let someone make fun of them. Yeah, I did.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 27 Jul 2017 @ 1:57am

    For me, the problem here is that the parody (and I would air quote it normally) is not obvious. That is one of the really key questions when it comes to parody of a trademark, it's making sure that the fact that it's not real is plain and obvious. If you saw the hat only from the right, you could easily mistake that it's a real Titlist product and not a parody.

    I also think it also shows a desire for enrichment from the original trademark more than to make any grand parody statement. The same hat without the Titlist trademark branding wouldn't be much more than another semi-smutty piece of Americana. With the Trademark, it appears to be mostly an infringing piece of semi-smutty Americana.

    I also think Mr Stone is right for once, Titlist likely has very deep pockets and can litigate this one into the ground and then 6 feet further under. There can't be enough money in making novelty smutty hats to pay for that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2017 @ 4:21am

      Re:

      For me, the problem here is that the parody (and I would air quote it normally) is not obvious.

      Especially for the willfully blind.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MyNameHere (profile), 27 Jul 2017 @ 4:44am

        Re: Re:

        Well, you are the smart one - so what EXACTLY do you think they are making a parody of? Converting a trademark into a semi-offence name for a body part is truly saying a lot, I know, but I think you can come up with some narrow form of parody for this.

        Go ahead. Just sit down over here and talk clearly for the cameras and microphones.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2017 @ 5:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "so what EXACTLY do you think they are making a parody of?"

          Probably what's plainly stated in the article, you idiot.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2017 @ 8:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think instead of coming here to be wrong and getting corrected by your betters. You should just see a dominatrix. It's easier and less publicly humiliating. Unless that's the part you get off on. Than by all means, please continue.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 27 Jul 2017 @ 12:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          what EXACTLY do you think they are making a parody of?

          They are parodying the Titleist logo by using the same font and overall design of the original logo to pass on a crude message (“titties”) which coincidentally contrasts with the “stuffy white guy game” image associated with golf (and, by extension, the Titleist brand). The quality of the parody does not change the fact that it is a parody.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 27 Jul 2017 @ 5:10am

      Re:

      "For me, the problem here is that the parody (and I would air quote it normally) is not obvious."

      That's when we joke about you n0ot being able to recognize titties even if they are stuck to your face?

      Ahem. Full of bs as always. Sadly they will probably steer away from the costs of such litigation putting once again IP laws in the realm of pure censorship. Win!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 27 Jul 2017 @ 10:40am

        Re: Re:

        Apt Popehat article: The First Amendment Protects Satire Even When Reckless, Stupid, Or Ideology-Addled People Fall For It

        Technically that's about satire, not parody, and the two things are legally distinct. But for the purposes of defining "obvious", the law is the same for both.

        Here are a couple that refer specifically to parody:

        Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor: Ashamed To Be Called A Prostitute, But Proud To Be A Thug

        Today In Silly Censorious Threats

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MyNameHere (profile), 27 Jul 2017 @ 1:26pm

        Re: Re:

        You still end up down the same path, which is "is it a parody?". The smirk on your face is breast related, not because of the use of the Titlist trademark to get there.

        As for full of BS, consider this: These are the sorts of things that would be argued in court. I am sure that a judge would be more than willing to hear both sides of the argument, after all of the other bases have been touched on the way to the court room. Landing in court, it would still be a crap shoot, with the legal wait of the system generally sitting on the side of the trademark holder. Would you want to be the defendant here? Do you really think the defendant is in a 100% secure position, such that any and all costs related to going to court are assured to be covered?

        I don't think so. I think it would be a risk because it's not a slam dunk legally. No BS, just asking the obvious questions rather than just swallowing the story whole without digesting it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    McGyver (profile), 27 Jul 2017 @ 5:29am

    I would have found Tit List funnier... But only for like a nanosecond.
    But now I'm aware of Titlist's logo and how stupid, unimaginative and thin skinned they are.
    Now I'll only ever see Tit List in their logo.
    This is the Streisand effect in action.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2017 @ 9:08am

    Here is a question. What happens if the CEO of I Made Bogey shows up in court with no lawyer, no preparation, and on the day of the trial, gets up for opening arguments and says "It is a parody, and that isn't against the law"

    Seriously, make sure a judge is overseeing the case (not a jury) and just say that what you did isn't illegal.

    What happens?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stosh, 27 Jul 2017 @ 10:10am

    They're terrified the parody hats will far outsell theirs...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Thad, 27 Jul 2017 @ 10:31am

    Uh-oh. Nobody show them that Beavis and Butt-Head episode -- I think it was called Mr. Anderson's Balls.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Jul 2017 @ 11:50am

    Parody is fine, but does having a company sell products truly parody?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sinsi (profile), 27 Jul 2017 @ 5:57pm

    I haven't even seen the first movie :(

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    edinjapan (profile), 28 Jul 2017 @ 2:56am

    Location Location Location

    I know a country where this company could operate with impunity. No US court would be able to touch them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.