America's Best Has Some Fun With Scott Walker's Super-Similar Campaign Logo

from the 'murica dept

Politics can be tricky territory for companies and brands to wade through. While some corporations have made notorious claims on political matters, and occasionally even get behind candidates, the vast majority of companies know that they’re better off endorsing nobody and nothing. As Michael Jordan once famously put it when he’d been urged by a Democratic campaign to be more politically active: “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

That’s what makes the reaction of America’s Best, the eyeglass and contact-lens company, to Scott Walker using a logo for his campaign that is nearly identical to the company’s so special. They didn’t lose their minds. They didn’t go trademark ballistic. They just had some fun with it.

Both Walker’s campaign and America’s Best Contacts and Eyeglasses feature a cartoonish, four-part American flag logo as the “E” in their names. The same flag icon is also their stand-alone logos when the text is removed.

In a brief phone call on Monday, America’s Best CEO Reade Fahs told Business Insider that his company wasn’t taking sides in the presidential race. But he said he appreciates the Walker campaign approving of the design.

“We don’t endorse presidential candidates, but we sure love it when they endorse us,” he quipped.

Here are the logos, Walker’s first and America’s Best second.

So, yeah, they’re the same. And it could have been very easy for the company at that point to completely flip out in anger, or to rush to assure everyone that it hadn’t endorsed any political candidate for any political office. Instead, the CEO’s calm and measured response was endearing. Not to mention the company’s response on social media.

.@CNNPolitics We think @ScottWalker‘s logo is HILLARYous. #logogate https://t.co/1KJwxcmh0t

— America’s Best (@Americas_Best) July 13, 2015

.@ScottWalker sure TRUMPed us by “borrowing” our logo. #logogate

— America’s Best (@Americas_Best) July 13, 2015

We aren’t the types to hide our logo under a BUSH. #logogate

— America’s Best (@Americas_Best) July 13, 2015

And they go on and on like that on Twitter, making sure everyone knows the company isn’t endorsing anyone, but likewise insisting the company isn’t going to go legal on Walker’s logo. In the meantime, rather than coming off like some kind of petty and frightened corporation by flipping out, America’s Best engenders a fun, laid back, hip sensibility. You know, good public relations, which has us talking about how cool a move it is rather than having some legal filing buried in the news that nobody cares about. Well done all around.

Filed Under: elections, logos, scott walker, trademark
Companies: america's best

DC Comics Going After A Spanish Soccer Club With A Bat In Its Logo For Some Reason

from the holy-trademark-abuse,-batman! dept

When it comes to being IP bullies, DC Comics has built quite the reputation for itself. From its taking on the gravestone of a victim of child abuse in the name of protectionism to taking on BBQ joints because of a logo that includes a bat. That last historical example foreshadows this latest news, in which DC Comics decides to take on a Spanish soccer team for having the audacity to include a bat in its logo.

According to a report from Yahoo Eurosport, DC Comics is suing the Spanish soccer team Liga Giants Valencia over their logo, which apparently resembles Batman’s logo in that it also features a bat. Unfortunately, according to European reports, the bat has been a symbol used in Spain for about 800 years. There’s even a fucking Wikipedia page about it. And the soccer team’s bat logo has been in use since 1919, before Batman was first published.

Here’s the logo in dispute.

Do the two logos have similarities? Sure, but that says a great deal more about the general indistinctness of DC Comics’ mark than it does about any sort of malicious copying by the Valencia club. Add to that the fact that, even working with such a general shape and color scheme, there are distinct differences between these two marks and the many, many other Batman marks that have been registered in the past, and one wonders what DC Comics was thinking yet again with another silly trademark dispute. After all, were you to review every Batman logo that’s been registered as a trademark, a means for customers to identify a particular brand, you have to wonder if there hasn’t been a real attempt to simply trademark every possible iteration of a bat as a logo. And that makes me wonder why such a practice doesn’t invalidate the trademark altogether.

All this and we haven’t even mentioned yet that I’m fairly certain that DC Comics doesn’t own a soccer club anywhere, so I’m not even remotely clear on how these two logos are competing in the same marketplace with the potential to confuse the same potential consumers. Add to that the long-established use of a bat as a logo in the Valencia region and this looks like a losing proposition for DC Comics.

Probably, DC thought this dumbassery would fly under the radar because it’s happening Spain, which does not have its own official Has DC Done Something Stupid Today counter, but they’re wrong, because The Outhouse is going international!

It has been 0 days! Olé!

Olé!

Filed Under: bat, batman, confusion, football, logos, soccer, spain, trademark
Companies: dc comics, liga giants valencia

Breweries Fight Over Trademark Of Hikers That Don't Look Alike

from the take-a-hike dept

The ongoing saga of strange trademark battles between purveyors of sweet, delicious alcohol continues this week. This latest case revolves around two beer breweries. Long Trail Brewing Co. of Vermont makes a suite of brews that feature its trademarked logo, which includes the image of a generic hiker with a backpack. The company is suing Bent Paddle Brewing Co. of Minnesota over the labels used on its “Trail Series” of beer, which include two hiker images, the most similar of which is a stick figure that is about the size of the legal type section in a typical ToS agreement. Seriously, here are the two labels.

If you’re confused as to whether or not those two labels represent that same brand of beer, you need immediate medical help. I’m forced to assume the dispute is over that tiny stick-figure guy at the top of the label, because cross-country skier guy on the other side of the can isn’t even close in terms of being an infringing logo. Not that the one at the top is any better. Other than the reverse of two common colors in the illustration scheme, there isn’t a whole lot of confusion to be had there. Not that this fact stopped Long Trail Brewing from hilariously claiming otherwise.

“Bent Paddle’s use of a hiker logo in connection with its ale products is likely to cause confusion and mistake and deceive consumers” as well as creating “the false and misleading impression that Bent Paddle’s products are manufactured by Long Trail, or are affiliated, connected or associated with Long Trail, or have the sponsorship, endorsement or approval of Long Trail, or are part of ‘The Long Trail Family of Fine Ales.’”

Ah, yes, there is sure to be this confusion over a dissimilar generic hiker logo featured at the top of a beer label that features the rival brewery’s name on it something like four times larger than the offending hiker. How clever of Bent Paddle to try to associate itself with a rival brewery by cleverly making sure everyone knows who actually made the beer in question. Keep in mind that Long Trail is asking for a ban of the logo, a recall of all beer sold with the logo, and triple damages and legal fees.

All for a stick figure. Way to go, guys.

Filed Under: breweries, hikers, logos, trademark
Companies: bent paddle brewing, long tail brewing

NSA, DHS Sued For Threatening People Who Created Parody Merchandise

from the parody-is-protected-free-speech dept

You may recall the story from a few months back about the NSA supposedly issuing a takedown over some parody NSA merchandise. The NSA later claimed that it had no problem with the parody T-shirt that was specified, but did admit that a few years ago, it had sent a cease-and-desist letter to Zazzle, the platform that many people use to make such branded content, telling them they couldn’t sell any merchandise with the NSA seal, since it would be a violation of 50 USC 3613, which says it’s against the law to “misuse” the NSA’s logo. It turns out that the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, had sent a similar letter, focusing on 18 USC 506, saying it’s a crime to “mutilate or alter the seal of any department or agency of the United States.” DHS even warned Zazzle that it could be punished with fines or jail time, and gave Zazzle a link to a general search on the Zazzle site of all items labeled “DHS.”

Either way, Dan McCall, who created the NSA T-shirt design which was taken down in August, using the motto “peeping while you’re sleeping” has decided to sue for declaratory relief, represented by Paul Levy of Public Citizen (disclaimer: Paul has represented us in various matters over the years).

The lawsuit argues that the two cease-and-desist letters sent to Zazzle have violated McCall’s First Amendment rights, which include protecting parody speech, and that the two laws cited should not be construed to forbid parodies because, well, because that’s ridiculous. Furthermore, the lawsuit argues that 18 USC 506 is unconstitutional, in that the claim against altering and mutilating seals is way too broad and can, as in this case, lead to protected speech being stifled.

Defendants violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by threatening to enforce 50 U.S.C. § 3613 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 506, 701, and 1017 to forbid McCall from displaying his NSA Listens Parody, his NSA Spying Parody, and his DHS Stupidity Parody, from placing the Parodies on products to identify the targets of his criticism, or from selling mugs, T-shirts or other items bearing those designs to customers who want to display the items to express their own criticisms of NSA and DHS.

In his blog post about the case, Levy also explains how Zazzle, though not a party in the suit, is really complicit in all of this, for using those single threatening cease-and-desist letters to take down future products and for not pushing back against such overly broad claims from the government. While he notes that when the government comes calling, lots of companies bend over to avoid any legal consequences, he still notes that this is the kind of situation where a competent lawyer at Zazzle should have pushed back on the government and pointed out that these letters were ridiculous (even more bizarre: Zazzle refused to share the letters with Levy, saying they would only read them aloud to him over the phone).

…it is inconceivable that the First Amendment might not protect these uses of the agencies’ shields, and the NSA’s trademark-like statute applies, by its terms, only when the challenged use “convey[s] the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by the National Security Agency.”  Although the NSA’s cease-and-desist letter specifically identified McCall’s “Spying Since 1952″ design as violating this statute, we should be able to expect a substantial commercial operation to push back against the implicit suggestion that somebody looking at that mug could have believed that NSA endorses it.  Even though the cease-and-desist letter warned Zazzle against “any” future use of its name, initials or seal, it is even more farfetched to think that NSA would have endorsed a version of its seal that says, “Peeping While You’re Sleeping.”  Consumers have a right to expect companies like Zazzle to have a thicker skin when faced with preposterous demands, and to wait for specific trademark challenges, rather than policing its service for other uses of the letters NSA, and proactively removing this sort of design in response to a cease-and-desist letter received two years before.

Happily, Zazzle faces commercial competition from others that do get tough on frivolous threats.  After Zazzle removed McCall’s designs in response to threats of litigation, McCall posted them to a virtual storefront at CafePress.com.   We don’t know whether CafePress has received similar threats from NSA or DHS, but based on previous experiences dealing with CafePress on trademark issues, I would expect CafePress to be more resistant to cease and desist letters. 

For example, a few years ago, CafePress stood up to the Republican National Committee when it tried to prevent CafePress users from using the RNC’s elephant logo in conjunction with materials opposing or endorsing various candidates or, indeed, praising or condemning the Republican party.  And indeed, when the City of Memphis went after an anonymous blogger and sent a bogus takedown letter to Zazzle over the sale of parody Tshirts making fun of its police department, Zazzle’s immediate response was to cave in while CafePress was willing to stand up to the pressure, although Zazzle did restore the images after I urged it to do so. 

Still, until Zazzle shows itself to be more energetic in responding to threats against political humor, parodists speaking about controversial subjects should consider voting with their feet by using other vendors.

Indeed. If you actually want a company that will stand up for your basic rights, it seems like Zazzle might not be the best option.

Filed Under: dan mccall, dhs, first amendment, free speech, logos, nsa, parody, paul levy

Johns Hopkins Demand To Professor To Remove Blog Post Was Over Totally Bogus Concerns

from the but-of-course dept

We wrote about the Dean of the Engineering School at Johns Hopkins telling cryptography expert and professor Matthew Green to remove his excellent blog post analyzing what attack vectors the NSA might be using to get around encrypted conversations. A few more details have come out, initially via Green’s own Twitter feed, which were then mushed together into paragraph form via Ars Technica, which also provides some follow up information. First up, is Green’s summary:

So listen, I’m trying not to talk about this much because anything I say will make it worse. What I’ve been told is that someone on the APL [Johns Hopkins’ Applied Physics Laboratory—motto: “Enhancing national security through science and technology”] side of JHU discovered my blog post and determined that it was hosting/linking to classified documents. This requires a human since I don’t believe there’s any automated scanner for this process. It’s not clear to me whether this request originated at APL or if it came from elsewhere. All I know is that I received an e-mail this morning from the Interim Dean of the Engineering school asking me to take down the post and to desist from using the NSA logo. He also suggested I should seek counsel if I continued. In any case I made it clear that I would not shut down my non-JHU blog, but I did shut down a JHU-hosted mirror. I also removed the NSA logo. I did not remove any links or photos of NOW PUBLIC formerly classified material, because that would just be stupid.

I’m baffled by this entire thing. I hope to never receive an e-mail like that again and I certainly believe JHU (APL) is on the wrong side of common sense and academic freedom, regardless of their obligations under the law. That said, I have no desire to cause trouble for any of the very good people at JHU so I’ll keep my posts off JHU property. I have no idea if this was serious or a tempest in a teapot.

Separately, JHU put out a statement stating the following:

The university received information this morning that Matthew Green’s blog contained a link or links to classified material and also used the NSA logo. For that reason, we asked Professor Green to remove the Johns Hopkins-hosted mirror site for his blog.

Upon further review, we note that the NSA logo has been removed and that he appears to link to material that has been published in the news media. Interim Dean Andrew Douglas will inform Professor Green that the mirror site may be restored.

Later, JHU told Ars Technica that it had not received a government request, but rather made all of these determinations internally.

Let’s pick apart these arguments, because nearly all of them are completely bogus, and JHU’s initial decision to send the request to Green was incredibly screwed up on a variety of levels. First off, on the question of the use of the logo. There has been some confusion over this, in part because of a silly law, 18 USC 701, which tries to bar the use of such logos for the purpose of impersonating an official from those agencies. Unfortunately, some like to interpret that as a full ban on using such logos even in reporting. But that’s wrong. Green has every right to use the logo in his post.

Similarly, the links to “classified material,” as Green himself notes, involved material that is clearly now in the public, having been reported on and discussed widely in a variety of news sources, starting off with the NY Times, The Guardian and Pro Publica. Of course, he does slightly overstate his case in pointing out that they’re public — as for really dumb reasons that we’ve discussed before the government still likes to pretend that classified info that is being widely discussed and shown in the press is still “classified.”

Either way, neither of those arguments justify asking Green to take down the blog post. Green was engaged in a public debate over very important topics, and did so in a perfectly reasonable and legitimate way. That JHU sought to stifle his speech raises serious questions about the way in which JHU views free speech and basic academic freedom. Even if there were slight concerns over the logo or the links, even a very simple review of the situation, along with a principled stand on free expression should have resulted in the school choosing not to do what it did.

Of course, the real hint at what happened comes from the beginning of Green’s explanation — that the complaint came from the APL, which (as some have pointed out) is really a defense contractor rather than an academic institution. It seems likely that the APL was much more concerned about pissing off its partners and colleagues at the NSA, rather than basic concepts such as academic freedom and freedom of speech. While JHU has allowed the post to go back up since the logo is gone, that’s a really weak response. JHU should admit that it screwed up royally, and was driven by the short-term economic interests of the APL, rather than the long term interests of protecting its key academics.

Filed Under: academic freedom, censorship, free speech, logos, matthew green, nsa, nsa surveillance

Things You Don't See Every Day: MPAA Argues For Fair Use In Court

from the say-what-now? dept

April Fool’s Day has already passed, so it appears this is legit. Yes, the MPAA has jumped into a court case to argue in favor of fair use. A few years ago, we wrote about the fact that there are actually lawyers whose main job is to watch movies to make sure every single thing that’s in there that might be covered by trademark or copyright is licensed. This leads to some crazy situations, such as the re-release of Titanic requiring a new license to show some of the paintings hanging in the film.

But what happens when a work in a film is infringing? Well, that’s the case at hand here. Apparently, the Baltimore Ravens football team used a logo designed by a fan for a few years, violating his copyright. The court ruled against the team, but also didn’t give the artist any money, since it noted that any profits from the team had nothing to do with the logo.

The artist, Frederick Bouchat, has continued to sue, trying to find creative ways to get some cash. Here’s THREsq summarizing the recent lawsuits and the result:

Then, in 2008, Bouchat sued the NFL and the Baltimore Ravens again. This time, he objected to use of the old infringing logo in highlight films, on the stadium’s display of old players and memorabilia. Then, a few years after that, he sued yet another time over use of the logo in documentary videos, in pictures on the stadium wall and in the Madden NFL football game, which allows users to compete with throwback uniforms.

Last November, a federal judge declared most of the uses — including in NFL television series and documentaries such as one that featured the player draft — to be covered as “fair use.” The judge factored in the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. The only use that fell outside of fair use was the way in which Bouchat’s logo was incorporated into a video game.

Bouchat appealed. And suddenly, the MPAA woke up and realized that fair use matters to the MPAA too. If the ruling goes in favor of Bouchat, suddenly many, many movies may be on the hook for things that happened to show up in movies that weren’t properly licensed. And then, the very same MPAA, who has worked hard to limit fair use around the globe, wouldn’t be very happy. So it actually had some Stanford fair use lawyers (who aren’t often on the same page as the MPAA) help it draft an amicus brief explaining why fair use is important.

Bouchat asks this court to adopt a rule that would depart from well established precedent and would have the potential to interfere with important speech and expression rights. Bouchat seeks nothing less than a de facto right to control the depiction of facts—in this case, events that actually happened on the football field—simply because those facts include the fact that the players wore uniforms that include Bouchat’s copyrighted logo. It is antithetical to the purposes of copyright to use it to force an inaccurate depiction of actual events.

The potential impact of Bouchat’s claims is not limited to the Baltimore Ravens or the NFL. Many historical subjects cannot be discussed effectively without the use of copyrighted material. It would be difficult, for example, to make an effective biography of an actor without including audiovisual clips depicting his work, in order, for example, to illustrate a point about his career and impact, Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, 146 F.Supp.2d 442, 446–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (finding transformative film footage used for the purpose of enabling the viewer to understand the actor Peter Graves’ modest beginnings in the film business), or to create a comprehensive study of surrealist art without including works by Salvador Dali, to accompany the author’s commentary, see Warren Publ’g Co. v. Spurlock, 645 F.Supp.2d 402, 419 (E.D. Pa. 2009). It would be nearly impossible to document any sliver of life in a major American city without capturing vast numbers of logos, signs, billboards, and other copyrighted works along the way. Cf. ESS Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, 547 F. 3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Possibly the only way, and certainly a reasonable way, to” recreate “look and feel” of city was “to recreate a critical mass of the businesses and buildings that constitute it,” even if protected by trademark). It would be similarly impossible to make a documentary about the healthfulness of McDonald’s food (Super Size Me) or Wal-Mart’s business practices (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price) without depicting each company’s logo.

Bouchat asks this Court to set forth a rule that would require permission for uses like these. That rule would have a profoundly negative impact on free speech and expression because rights-holders would demand some control over the way individuals or organizations are portrayed, or simply choose to prohibit unflattering or disfavored depictions.

Funny, isn’t it, that this is the very same MPAA who insists that nothing about copyright law can be construed to be a limit on free speech. Well, until it’s the free speech of the MPAA’s studio members, I guess.

Not surprisingly, I actually agree strongly with the MPAA (who thought they’d ever see that come out of me?) that this should be fair use. I just find it funny to see the MPAA making such an argument.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, frederick bouchat, logos
Companies: mpaa

DailyDirt: Make The Logos Bigger, Better

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Logos can convey all kinds of messages — and instill a sense of confidence or demonstrate a lack of attention to detail. Some logos are fun. Others are serious. Some company logos don’t change very much over a long period of time, but others seem to change with every passing design fad. Some logo re-designs are more successful than others. Here are just a few interesting logo collections of some branding campaigns that you might recognize.

• SB Nation’s network of 300 blogs redesigned all their logos for a re-launch — with just a single designer, Fraser Davidson, in 7 weeks. Designing 300 logos is hard enough, but add in the complication that none of these logos should in any way infringe upon their related sports teams’ official trademarks…. [url]
• Imagine some popular corporate logos redesigned for a hipster blog or startup. You don’t have to imagine it, there’s a Tumblr blog for it. [url]
• The evolution of corporate logos is kinda fascinating. Apple’s first logo in 1976 is really different from its current minimalistic logo. [url]
• Some logos have hidden messages in them. The Big Ten collegiate conference logo has a little nod to the fact that there are actually eleven teams in its organization. [url]

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: branding, design, logos, marketing, messaging
Companies: apple, pepsi

Feeling Threatened By Online Grocery Store, Apple Challenges Polish Site A.pl

from the comparing-apples-to-a.pl's dept

Apple is very protective of its Apple name and logo trademarks. We have noted in the past that it seems to think that no company can use a logo that even remotely resembles an apple. So it really should be no surprise to learn that Apple is going on the offensive, double time, in order to stop a Polish online grocery store from receiving a trademark for A.pl.

“Apple brand is widely recognised and the company says that A.pl, by using the name that sounds similar, is using Apple’s reputation,” patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said.

There also seems to be a dispute over a logo trademark sought by A.pl for its site Fresh24.pl. You can see the logo in question below.

Or how about this side by side comparison: Last time I checked, Apple had no business endeavors in online grocery sales, so it would seem to be a stretch to think that consumers would be confused and think that A.pl was an offering by the electronics company. Additionally, A.pl and Fresh24.pl seem to be regional and limited to Poland at this time. So there would be limited harm if any to Apple’s global brand. In the end, this just ends up looking like a bunch of trademark lawyers on Apple’s payroll looking to keep busy and gain billable hours.

Filed Under: apple, grocery store, logos, poland, trademark
Companies: apple

Apple Still Seems To Think That Only It Could Possibly Have An Apple Shaped Logo

from the uh,-that's-not-how-trademark-law-works... dept

A few years ago, we noted that Apple was threatening the New Zealand supermarket chain Woolworths (not connected to the now defunct US retailer of the same name) for daring to have an apple-shaped W as its logo:

It’s hard to see anyone being even remotely confused. But it’s not stopping Apple lawyers. Vic alerts us to the news that Apple is threatening Sichuan Fangguo Food Co., Ltd. in China for its logo: Once again, I’m at a loss as to how anyone, a moron in a hurry or not, would be confused about these two logos. And, I bring up the moron in a hurry standard purposely here, as it was Apple’s own lawyers who repopularized the “moron in a hurry” standard for use in trademark law in its own trademark fight with The Beatles’ Apple Corp.

And, honestly, as almost everyone notes on seeing the Sichuan Fangguo Food Co. logo, if anyone should be upset, it should be LG, whose logo looks a lot closer:

Or, you know, we can just admit that absolutely no one is confused about any of these… and move on with our lives.

Filed Under: apple, logos, trademark
Companies: apple, sichuan fangguo food co, walgreens

Colleges Cracking Down On High Schools Using Their Logos

from the logo-wars dept

We recently had a story of a high school caught with a logo copied from the Dodge Ram logo. Apparently, this idea of high schools copying their logos is hardly an isolated instance. For decades, it’s been commonplace for high schools to just copy the logos of various colleges (or, at least use them for very close “inspiration”), but lately colleges have started cracking down on this practice, threatening high schools, or even demanding payment. This is really the latest result of a trend we’ve noted in the past, where universities and colleges have taken trademarks to a new level after some court rulings suggested exclusive rights in college logos existed. Of course, it seems a bit silly. It’s not as if anyone’s going to buy a high school t-shirt instead of the college shirt, but it seems like these universities and colleges want to be aggressive with their trademark efforts. At least some appear to have very reasonable licensing programs. Apparently KSU lets anyone use their logo for $1 every two years — but does put some restrictions on it, such as not letting you sell t-shirts with the inspired logo unless they use a KSU-connected vendor, who gives a percentage to the university.

Filed Under: high schools, logos, trademark, universities