If you correct for company size, Google is generally pretty decent on intellectual property matters. But, hey, I guess no corporation is perfect. The company whose motto is “don’t be evil” is, of course, very big. And they certainly have a very big legal team. I think it might be time for that legal team to get a quick primer on the wider culture at Google and do a quick review on the company motto, because those lawyers apparently suddenly decided that a news site, called 9to5Google, was suddenly violating Google’s trademark after a scant five full years in operation.
The threat device Google decided to employ in this case was the news site’s use of Google’s Doubleclick/Ad Exchange network, which the site claims is a decent profit center for 9to5Google. There had apparently been occasional blips of the network not working in the past, all of which had been quickly resolved. Not the case this time, however.
But this time was different. We have learned that Google’s Public Policy Team has decided that, after 5 years of publishing under the 9to5Google name, we have been violating their trademark. Sure we’re on Google+, News, Apps, Ads and just about everything else Google as 9to5Google but I guess something changed.
We are a news site dedicated to covering Google, not trying to masquerade as Google, so we’re appealing this decision (and if you know anyone at Google please have them run this up the ladder). But there is a big chance we’ll have to change our name. Obviously we’ll do a redirect so you can enter 9to5google.com in your browser and shouldn’t have to update your bookmarks feeds or Twitter or anything.
The post notes that there was never any real hostility between them and Google in the past, so it seems pretty clear this was the legal team suddenly becoming aware of something that was not and had never been a problem in the past, and then making it a problem for whatever reason. It seems clear that the news site had never attempted to pass itself off as a wing of Google and it’s difficult to think of another name for a news site that specifically covers Google that wouldn’t include Google’s name.
Fortunately, it appears the Google Gods changed their minds.
Update: A Google rep now tells us: Our Policy Team has taken another look at this and decided to reinstate ad serving to your site. No further action is needed. Please reach out if you still have any issues with ads on your site.
So we’re back..for now – but obviously we’re exposed and it might make sense to make a change anyway. Stay tuned.
And that’s where the harm and the tad bit of evil comes in: just the threat of exposure of a trademark issue between a massive company like Google and a small news site is likely going to result in the news site changing its name, even as the company walks back the threat. I can completely understand how this happens, but I can also understand the chill that must still be working its way down the spines of the folks running 9to5Google. And that sucks.
Did you know that Coca-Cola has been attempting to get a trademark on the word “zero” for beverages in the United States for well over a decade? Yes, the most well-known soft-drink maker, which sells a product called ‘Coke Zero’, first filed for a trademark on the single word in 2003. The fight has been ongoing ever since, with Dr. Pepper Snapple Group opposing the trademark, because, well, lots of other beverage companies use that common word and because of course it did. Oddly, we covered a trademark case a few years back in which Coca-Cola was on the receiving end of a trademark suit over its use of the word, that time from a water company that offered a product it had named ‘Naturally Zero.’ Of note was Judge John Lee’s justification for siding with Coca-Cola in that case:
U.S. District Judge John Lee said that the “Naturally Zero” label straightaway conveys to consumers that the product is without calories or additives, and therefore not suggestive enough to supply a trademark that is inherently distinctive for a beverage label.
That opinion appeared to be a sign of things to come. Coca-Cola had lost its bid to trademark the word “zero” in the U.K. after regulators sided with Pepsi Co.’s opposition. Just weeks ago, as well, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office rejected Coca-Cola’s application entirely, reasoning that the use of the word zero was descriptive of the caloric content of the drink. These rulings, along with ongoing challenges by Coke to others using the word for beverage products, have become the setting for what will be an upcoming ruling by the U.S. Trademark Office, which should finally put to rest the dispute between Coke and Dr. Pepper.
Arguments wrapped up in December, after Coke and Dr Pepper logged hundreds of pages of arguments and exhibits in 170 filings with the U.S. trademark office. A ruling could come before the summer, based on past trademark registration disputes, say people familiar with the case.
If Coke prevails, it could more easily sue imitators. If it loses, it could face an onslaught of competitors such as Dr Pepper’s Diet Rite Pure Zero, who take the name and dilute a brand that has turned out to be a star for Coke in a game that has been rough going.
I would contend that the above is improperly written, as the barrage of oppositions from and against Coke suggests the onslaught of competition already exists. That should have been expected, because we’re talking about the word “zero” here, and in an industry rife with no-calorie drinks, how could that word not be in common usage?
More interesting to me will be to see how the USPTO ruling lines up with our neighbors in the world. There seems to be little sense in arguing anything other than that the word “zero” ought to be free for use rather than locked up behind trademark protections. Should the USPTO rule differently, however, it will serve as a nice and tidy example of just how crazy the office is in leaning towards protectionism as a rule.
Alright, this one has me more than a bit puzzled. We’ve written here before about Urban Outfitters, which has previously been on the receiving end of intellectual property disputes in the form of the company’s use of famous Obama iconography and for trying to inject a bit of humor into its coffee offerings. This time around, however, the clothing retailer is facing a lawsuit from the Navajo Nation for selling clothing and merchandise with patterns inspired by Native American designs and including the word “Navajo” or “Navaho” in the offerings.
The clothing chain will ask a federal judge in Santa Fe, N.M., on Wednesday to limit how far back in time the tribe can go to seek money over the company’s products, which included everything from necklaces, jackets and pants to a flask and underwear with the “Navajo” name.
The tribe’s lawsuit alleging trademark violations has been working its way through the courts for more than three years. Efforts to settle the case featuring two unlikely foes have failed as the tribe seeks vast sums of money from the company that also owns the Anthropologie and Free People brands.
The tribe isn’t specifying exactly how much it’s seeking, but considering it is asking for all the profits from the relevant merchandise on some of the products in question, and $1,000 per day per item on others, we’re talking about millions of dollars here. The tribe is arguing that Urban Outfitters is violating the tribe’s federal and state trademarks on its name, as well as the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which was designed to prevent the sale of goods designed to fool customers into thinking that they were actually made by Native Americans. Let’s deal with these in reverse order.
Urban Outfitters is the kind of retailer you find commonly in shopping districts all over the place. The company has never attempted to draw any affiliation with Native Americans in the past. Navajo branded clothing is branded as such as an homage to the inspiration for the design. The Navajo Nation has put forth a survey showing that 40% of consumers were confused by the use, but Urban Outfitters is expected to attack the validity of the survey. Keep in mind that the Arts and Crafts Act is entirely about fooling customers into thinking that the goods were made by Native Americans, rather than having anything to do with appropriating the name of the tribe. It’s the kind of thing that, even if this were an actual valid problem, could be fixed by Urban Outfitters putting up a sign that said, “These products were not made by Native Americans,” or something of that nature. But that isn’t what the tribe actually wants. They want licensing from the trademark of their name.
As for the trademark in question, Urban Outfitters claims that “Navajo” is generic and that the tribe has abandoned the trademark first granted in the 1940s. The Navajo Nation pushed back with some history of the term Navajo, which was apparently a derogatory term invented by Spanish settlers. The claim is that the inventive nature of the word is a rebuttal on it being generic.
The Nation disputes the allegation of genericness. It asserts that the NAVAJO® mark is inherently distinctive as either fanciful, arbitrary or suggestive. According to the Nation, the mark is a fanciful because the term “Navajo” is an archaic, invented name, and fanciful when applied to the classes of goods of jewelry, clothing and accessories. Ironically, the Nation explained that the term was originally a derogative term used by the Spanish when referring to members of the Nation. The Nation members themselves refer to themselves as Diné. Accordingly, NAVAJO® is an invented term and fanciful when applied to the goods sold by the Nation.
In the alternative, the mark is arbitrary when used to describe these goods. Finally, the Nation contends that the mark is at the very least suggestive, because it suggests or requires an extra inference that goods sold are associated with the Nation.
I’m just not sure how a trademark on “Navajo” is substantively different than allowing for a trademark on “American”, “Mexican” or “Canadian.” It’s the name of a people, nationality, or ethnicity. I’m struggling to see how such terms on their own are not generic.
We all know that the NFL doesn’t want anyone to use the term “Super Bowl” without having paid the NFL first (and paid lots and lots of money). As we’ve pointed out in the past, most of this is pure bullshit. In most cases, people and companies totally can use the term “Super Bowl” but few people want to deal with any sort of legal fight, so they just don’t.
What’s even crazier though is how the NFL has tried to crack down on euphemisms as well. The most popular term that companies use instead of the Super Bowl is “The Big Game.” And going back to 2007, we noted that the NFL wanted to trademark that too, even though it’s not the one who came up with the term, nor does it really use it. A bunch of companies opposed the NFL’s attempt, but over at the Pirated Thoughts blog, Michael Lee notes that the NFL is doing a few things that suggest it may want to trademark “The Big Game” again. At the very least, it’s trying to block anyone else from trademarking it:
In late 2014, an individual in California filed a trademark registration for the BIG GAME DAME mark to cover athletic gear such as shirts, pants and jackets. The applicant claims that the mark is already in use and filed the ?in use? specimen that can be seen below. The specimen is nothing more than a ratty plain white t-shirt that someone stuck a homemade label on from their old Brother P-Touch. Alright, this all seems a bit shady but we will put the skepticism to the side.
More germane than the earnestness of this trademark application, in December 2015 the mark was published for opposition. On January 26th, the NFL requested and was granted an extension of time to oppose issuance of the trademark. This is the usual first step that allows the parties time to try to work out a settlement, allows the opposer additional time to draft the opposition or even allows the opposer time to reevaluate its position and not even file an opposition in the first place.
This potential opposition is not an isolated incident. On the same day, the NFL was also granted an extension of time to oppose an entirely different mark by another clothing company, BIG GAME DAY ARE YOU READY! A month earlier, the NFL also requested an extension of time to oppose this same clothing company?s BIG GAME mark. Three potential trademark oppositions over the use of BIG GAME in a month?s time, where there is smoke there could be some fire.
In other words, the NFL is at least suggesting that it may have a right to “The Big Game” as well. It’s not clear if the NFL thinks there will be less opposition this time, or that people won’t notice. Or maybe it just doesn’t care (which seems to be the standard operating procedure of the NFL these days). But, once again, such a move would be crazy. And, of course, it wouldn’t even be necessary if the NFL hadn’t been such a trademark extremist in the first place.
We’ve been talking about the insanity occurring in the beer industry regarding trademark for quite some time now. If you haven’t been following along, the short version of this is that as the craft beer revolution has exploded the number of breweries taking part in the industry, so too has it exploded the number of trademark spats within it. In some senses, we should have seen this coming. Given the number of new players in the market with the limited linguistic resources available with which those players could name their companies and products, perhaps it was somewhat inevitable that some of the companies involved would try to lean on trademark law to fend off what they saw as impeding competition with too-close brand names. That said, many of these conflicts fail to live up to the purpose of trademark law, many of them giving barely even a nod towards an actual concern over customer confusion. Instead, protectionism reigns.
That seems to be the case in a spat between two Canadian breweries, with Moosehead Brewery claiming that the much smaller District Brewing Company’s Müs Knuckle brew is too close in name and therefore infringing of the former’s trademark.
Moosehead and Müs Knuckle are two breweries in a battle over trademarks. Short version, Moosehead says that Müs Knuckle is too close to their trademark for beer. The idea is that Müs Knuckle could be confused for a Moosehead product, or at least that’s what Moosehead thinks, and that’s why they are going after the smaller, Saskatchewan-based brewery.
The case is a bit of a stretch, largely due to a lot of the specific choices that Müs Knuckle has made. The packaging is not very similar outside of the glass used, the Regina company going with a predominantly blue label design in a diamond shape, whereas Moosehead is oval, green, and has a moose as part of the logo itself. The fact that Müs is also deliberately misspelled is another aesthetic choice that works to the advantage of the smaller company, it can be argued that they are trying to distance themselves from their more established competitor by stylizing their name.
Left out of the analysis above is the, um, colorful connotation of the term “moose knuckle”, the explanation of which I’ll allow you to discover for yourself should you need to. What the above should indicate to you is that this trademark action is all about the word “moose”, including variations of the word that are entirely made up, such as “müs”, which isn’t a real word. Beyond that word, nearly everything else to do with the packaging and trade dress is different, save for them both being in a green bottle. Which, you know, how many types of bottles can you use for a beer? So, the question to be answered here is whether customers will find themselves confused into thinking two different breweries selling beer that incorporate differently spelled versions of the word “moose” are actually the same, despite everything else to do with the packaging of the products.
Looking at the trade dress of both side by side, I would say the question is easily answered.
Confused? Yeah, I didn’t think so. In addition to having different fonts, colors, label shapes, names, and spellings, Moosehead includes and image of a moose’s head, while Müs Knuckle doesn’t include any images of a moose knuckle, because that would be porn. The original post appears to agree.
It’s our natural inclination to go for the underdog in cases like this, but in this case it’s the right instinct. The reason is that the Müs Knuckle brand is far enough out from the design and image of Moosehead that it’s clear this is a very flimsy case, as well as a case that is meant to push just how far the larger brand can take their trademark. It’s also a case where the intended purpose of the trademark – reducing consumer confusion – is being used to push competition in the sidelines. A smaller company, Müs Knuckle would have difficulty paying for a massive re-branding, especially as it would have to spend a great deal of effort trying to get their audience to recognize the new name and package. It could be a death blow to a brand that is quietly establishing itself, and a blow caused by a brand that is not substantially similar to the new product.
Expect this dispute to meet a quick demise. If not, then good luck to the Canadian brewery industry in developing new brands.
Every year about this time, it’s become a running joke what the NFL tries to do in controlling who says what about the Super Bowl. It’s gotten to such absurd levels that I’ve taken to calling it “The Game That Must Not Be Named.” Setting aside the insanity that is having ICE go piracy hunting just prior to the game to make sure that nobody can see the product outside of the official channels, the NFL also enjoys pretending like it can control how advertisers refer to the sporting contest. The key aspect of the NFL’s demand is that nobody can use the term “Super Bowl” in advertisements unless the company is an official sponsor. That, of course, isn’t even remotely true, but pretty much everyone buying ads bows at the NFL altar. This has also given birth to creative ways for advertisers to poke fun at the NFL for being such asshats, such as the Newcastle Brewing’s lovely entry a few years back, when it produced an advertisement about an advertisement it didn’t make, in part because the NFL wouldn’t allow them to say “Super Bowl.”
Well, the tradition continues, it seems, with Key and Peele promoting Squarespace by setting up a website to do “Game Day Live Commentary”, called Real Talk, with a timer countdown that appears to coincide with a big sporting event occurring this weekend. Notably absent at their site, with all kinds of information about what they’re going to be doing in terms of “sports commentary” on a “football” game, is any mention of the phrase “Super Bowl.” Because… the NFL. They even give a shoutout to this insanity in one of their promos.
While it would be easy to let frustration dominate while thinking about how the NFL’s overbearing stance has given rise to any of this, instead let the futility of it all sink in and enjoy a laugh at the NFL’s expense. Does anyone not know what Key and Peele are referring to? Of course not. Anyone confused as to what the timer at the top of the page is counting down to? Nope. Is there anyone at all that gives even a moment of thought to differentiating which ads feature the term “Super Bowl” and which use some stand-in term to dance around it? No, dear friends, there is not.
Meaning that the NFL has accomplished exactly nothing, other than to create an atmosphere where the advertisers they want to become sponsors choose instead to gain attention for themselves by mocking the NFL’s attempt at protectionism instead. That isn’t exactly the Streisand Effect, but it’s something similar.
Since late last week, we’ve been getting lots of inbound requests and submissions to write about The Fine Brothers, and the claims that they’re somehow trying to “control” or “claim ownership” on the concept of “react videos.” Almost all of the inbound requests are expecting us to trash the Fine Brothers for this apparent attempt to “own” something that can’t be owned, and we’re going to disappoint them. Having gone through all of the details, it actually looks like the Fine Brothers were legitimately trying to do something that’s actually… kind of cool. Now, before you rip off my head as well, please wait and hear me out. I will say that they could have been a bit more tactful about it, but I don’t think they deserve the intense hatred they’re getting.
There are lots of details here, but it starts with the Fine Brothers, Benny and Rafi, who have built up a rather impressive empire in creating amusing internet videos. They have a bunch of shows, many of which are crazy popular. Among the most well-known is probably the “Kids React” series, in which they film kids reacting to things (often “old” things that the kids may not be familiar with, frequently pop culture related). Personally, I like the one where kids react to seeing the very first iPod. Warning, if you’re older than, like, 10, this video may make you feel really old.
Anyway… this latest mess kicked off with a YouTube video where Benny and Rafi Fine act as if they’ve just cured cancer or something, they’re so excited for what they’re putting out into the world — a way for anyone to “license” their various show “formats,” like Kids React:
And, right off the bat, I can totally understand why people were at least a little concerned about this. We’ve all spent enough time dealing with big successful entities using “licensing” to mean “we’re going to stop you from doing stuff unless you pay us.” And, honestly, the video above does feel a little weird with the two of them acting as if they’ve just done the most amazing thing in the world for their fans. I think the other problem with the way they announced this is that they’ve probably been so deep in the Southern California/entertainment world where questions about “licensing formats” for TV shows is something that’s understood by everyone, that they just used the same terminology, without realizing how that would play with basically everyone else in the world, especially among their fan base. Again, to most people “licensing” means taking someone else’s money and “formats” sounds like they’re claiming ownership of any kind of reaction videos.
Here’s what they probably should have said they were trying to do: “Hey, everyone, we know we’ve got lots of enthusiastic fans who love our react videos and want to make their own. And now we’re going to help you make those videos, help promote them and even help you make some money off of them! Yay! Isn’t that exciting?”
Here’s what they said instead: “Hey, everyone, we’re going to let you license our “React” intellectual property. Also, people who copy our videos are bad people, but now you can do it if you license from us! Isn’t that totally exciting?”
Here’s what everyone heard: “Hey, everyone, we own “reaction videos” and now if you want to make your own, you have to give us a cut or we’ll shut you down, because you’re bad! Isn’t that exciting?”
The problem was that they focused on the mechanism (“licensing!”) rather than the benefits. They’ve been pretty clear that they’re not looking to shut down anyone. And all the claims from people saying that they’re claiming “ownership” of reaction videos is wrong. Yes, they’ve trademarked some stuff, but trademarks are not copyrights or patents. And, yes, while there is trademark abuse, there’s no indication that what they’re trying to do here is abusive. Actually, it looks like a pretty good idea.
They know that lots of people make similar reaction videos. And a lot of those people are their fans. But rather than shut them down and rather than demand big licensing fees, they created this (somewhat unique) program, where they’re giving a license to anyone who wants it, and with that license, you get a variety of benefits, including graphic elements and (importantly) the ability to have the Fine Brothers help promote and monetize your videos. They take a cut (looks like a pretty small percentage actually), but that should be worth it for many people, who probably wouldn’t have many opportunities to monetize the videos by themselves.
So, rather than use intellectual property to limit people (especially fans), this effort looks like it’s designed to do the opposite. It’s offering ways for fans who make their own videos to be considered “official” videos. Imagine, for example, if LucasFilm did the same thing, giving a sort of stamp of approval for people making fan Star Wars films — and would even let them release them, just as long as LucasFilm got a small cut? That would be kind of cool.
Now, there is some, potentially valid, concern that the Fine Brothers have attempted to trademark some of the names of their shows, and those trademarks could potentially be abused. Additionally, the whole “people are stealing our formats!” claim in the video above just comes across as silly. Finally, there are at least some examples of absolutely stupid takedowns that may have been made by the Fine Brothers or by people working for them. And those are all certainly issues to be concerned about — and the Fine Brothers should have perhaps realized that those issues were going to come up, especially the way they presented this.
But, going back to the actual licensing program, it’s not that crazy by itself. A trademark is pretty limited in what it can prevent here, and it really doesn’t look like they’re trying to take down generic reaction videos — and the fact that they’ve publicly insisted they’re not intending to do so would clearly hurt any actual attempt to do so later. The takedown pointed out above was stupid, and pretty clearly fair use, but was using the Fine Brothers’ original work (it was a video of him reacting to one of their Kids React videos). Again, it was a really really dumb takedown that they shouldn’t have done, but is a separate issue from this licensing program for people creating something different entirely.
Similarly, a lot of the criticism is that there’s nothing special or unique in “reaction videos” and that plenty of others have done them, even predating the Fine Brothers. That’s true — and this is where the misunderstanding of “format” outside of the cozy Southern California entertainment world comes in. What they’re talking about is building off of the larger reputation associated with the shows themselves — something the Fine Brothers actually did build up beyond just generic reaction videos — including a general setup and script for how each of the videos goes along with the graphical elements that accompany the shows. Most other reaction videos don’t follow that same format — with multiple people looking at a laptop or a piece of technology, with the quick cuts between different folks, and the captions and explanation bubbles and whatnot. I’m not saying any of that is brilliant, but it is the kind of thing that, when packaged together, could certainly be a valid “format” for a show.
Again, if you separate it out, overall, this actually looks like a pretty cool idea for how an entertainment brand could (and probably should!) embrace fan culture and fans trying to build on their work. But, it was presented slightly awkwardly, with a focus on terminology not well understood outside of the entertainment business, and in a world where people are (so rightfully!) concerned about abusing intellectual property. And, the fact that the Fine Brothers have apparently done some stupid takedowns doesn’t help at all. Mix in a bit of Reddit mob behavior and you have a recipe for a massive overreaction.
I’m not certain why people think this will work, but there seems to be an idea floating around a few of our fellow citizens that they can simply force their favorite sports teams to do what they want by filing trademarks for things they never intend to use. You may recall the story about a jackass in North Dakota who wanted to prevent the University of North Dakota from changing its name from The Fighting Sioux to, well, anything else that had been suggested by filing for trademarks on all the other things that had been suggested. Such a strategy was doomed to fail from the beginning for any number of reasons, but mostly because you actually have to be using what you’re trying to trademark in commerce in order to get it approved, and trolling isn’t a commercial enterprise as far as I know.
Now we have another story, though it shifts from one of trolling to one of simple sadness, as a Raiders fan who doesn’t want his team to move to San Antonio, as reportedly might soon happen, has decided to launch a preemptive strike by filing for a trademark for “San Antonio Raiders.”
An Oakland Raiders season-ticket holder who wants the team to remain in the East Bay has filed a trademark application for the name “San Antonio Raiders.”
“I figured if I took over the name, San Antonio Raiders, I could force (the team) to stay in Oakland,” Lane Blue of Fresno, California, said in a phone interview.
I’m loathe to heap any real anger upon a Raiders fan, because it seems to me that life as a Raiders fan must be so horrible so as to warp the brain to some degree, but anyone with a bare minimum of knowledge of how trademarks work knows this isn’t going to work. Again, you have to use the mark in commerce to get a trademark at all, and Lane Blue would have to show that he’s using the mark in a way with which the Raiders would be competing. Also, if the team really is planning on a move to San Antonio, it would be criminal for the team’s lawyers not to have already begun the trademark filing process. Regardless, you can expect the application to be reviewed and summarily denied.
But the larger point is that this is a symptom of what permission culture does: it makes the uninformed think that tools like trademark allow for a sort of monopolistic control where it actually doesn’t. Why does it do this? Well, because too many times trademark, and other intellectual property laws, skirt or outright cross the line into that exact sort of heavy-handed protectionism, albeit in a less obvious way.
So sorry, Raiders fan. You can’t use intellectual property to force your team to stay nearby. Now, maybe if your last name was Disney, on the other hand…
Honey badger may not care, but “comedic narrator” Christopher Gordon certainly does. The voice behind viral “Honey Badger Don’t Care” video is suing (yet another) entity, alleging that Papyrus Recycled Greeting, Inc. infringed on his trademarks with its line of honey badger greeting cards.
The allegedly infringing greeting cards—apparently manufactured under Papyrus’s “Recycled Greetings” brand—are invariably formulaic and deeply, deeply unfunny.
“It’s Your Birthday!” a honey badger appears to say. Within, the heartbreaking revelation that Honey Badger don’t give a shit.
and that b) the allegedly infringing phrase only appears in the video once and isn’t among the trademarks Gordon has registered.
Here’s the thing: when Randall’s video blew up all those years ago, he went ahead and did register some trademarks, which he used to sell shirts, mugs, toys, and game apps. But he only registered HONEY BADGER DON’T CARE, not HONEY BADGER DON’T GIVE A SHIT, which now makes his case a bit weaker.
You can probably chalk up the lack of a “HONEY BADGER DON’T GIVE A SHIT” trademark to the Patent and Trademark Office’s general resistance to all things sweary. Gordon either didn’t think to register this phrase or knew it would be futile. Even if he had attempted registration, it’s likely it would not have received protection, meaning Gordon — along with anyone else similarly motivated — could use the “SHIT” variation without trampling on each other’s trademarks.
That hasn’t stopped Gordon from pursuing this lawsuit, even though the defendant isn’t using the trademarked phrase or anything else of Gordon’s other than his general portrayal of honey badgers and their give-a-shitness.
But the most likely reason this lawsuit exists is because IP law tends to encourage speculative litigation. Trolls of all varieties (trademark, copyright, patent) have long capitalized on the low barrier to entry (a relatively low filing fee) and the sky-high potential costs of defending against a lawsuit (limited only to the defendant’s imagination) to extract settlements from all and sundry. This “comedic narrator” is no different, as Jeong points out via a PACER screencap.
Considering its a pretty standard (and pretty baseless) trademark infringement lawsuit, you might be wondering why the filing is 114 pages long. Well, it appears Gordon has implemented the Zarrelli Complaint Collation Technique™ , which involves printing out screenshot after screenshot of anything that might conceivably be considered relevant… and then adding several that aren’t. In Gordon’s case, this means printing out what appears to be his entire website and submitting it as an exhibit.
Will Gordon succeed? It’s tough to say. Taken on its merits, the lawsuit seems unlikely to be resolved in his favor. However, if he has more disposable income available or just an insane amount of persistence, he could outlast his opponent and obtain the settlement he would obviously prefer to an injunction. Unfortunately, if Gordon’s looking for a quick settlement, the arrival of a motion to dismiss by the defendant isn’t a welcome development.
One thing is certain, though: IP law has a lot to answer for. Jeong sums it all up in this pithy paragraph.
This is what you do now, I guess. Make one joke that resonates with the internet, trademark it, and then find a lawyer. Money Badger don’t give a shit?
Usually when we talk about the Oscars behaving badly about intellectual property, it has to do with either its combat against film piracy or its rather stunning tradition of facilitating it. What’s clear in most of those stories, though, is that when the Motion Picture Academy decides to sink its collective teeth into something, it is bulldog-ish in its unwillingness to let it go. It seems that this is the case on matters of trademark, as well. Unimaginably petty trademark matters.
As CNN was covering a boycott by some actors of the Oscars ceremony, it appears someone in PR for the Academy had pestered CNN to the point that the news channel, contrary to how just about everyone else does it, agreed to include a trademark registration symbol when discussing the Oscars on its crawl. To get an idea of how jarring doing this is to the viewer, see the following screen-cap.
Now, is this the hugest deal of anything ever? Obviously not, but that’s what makes this so annoying: why does the Academy care if CNN’s crawl about the Oscars has a trademark registration mark? Television and print news organizations all over the place omit it all the time, because including it both serves no purpose and annoys basically everyone. Why is this the hill on which the Academy chose to fight?
While the name “Oscars” is certainly a registered trademark of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (so CNN is correct on that count), most style manuals, including the AP Stylebook, forgo the use of it or the non-registered trademark symbol (™).
Not only does the use of it clutter up pages and graphics, but back in the old days when news was literally distributed via wires, such symbols couldn’t be transmitted.
It’s only useful quality is as an insight into the minds of employees at an organization that has gone IP-crazy. Because they must be the only ones that actually care about this. Still, it’s disappointing that CNN’s apathy led to capitulation to the silliest of demands.
