Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Trying to Trademark the Smiley Face
Ellis D. Tripp writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that mega-retailer, Wal-Mart, is now fighting it out with a man who claims to have invented the 'smiley face' logo, and has been marketing it since the '70s. From the article: "Until now the smiley face had been considered in the public domain in the US, and therefore free for anyone to use. Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley told the Los Angeles Times that it had not moved to register the trademark until Mr Loufrani had threatened to do so."
for two months to pay bills.
NO ONE that worked there smiled. Why? We were all miserable. The only time we were happy was when our shifts were ending at 7am, coincidentally when they started selling alcohol each day. I can't speak for walmart in general, but the store I worked at had HORRIBLE management, directly contributing to the lack of smiles amongst the night shift.
Back on topic, its horsepucky. People see a smiley face, they do NOT think "walmart".
Walmart is trying to avoid the same situation Linux was in a few years ago. Everybody knew that Linux came from Linus, and yet the USPTO (the "M" for Morons is silent) allowed some mental defective to register "Linux" as a trademark. Much confusion and angst ensued until Linus was able to wrest his trademark back. The way trademarks work, Walmart MUST try to defend their common-law trademark against a rogue trademark registration.
In this case, Walmart is the little guy defending itself against the Big, Bad USPTO.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Unless I've misread something, this is the little guy trying to crush Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's move is a protective reaction against another entity wanting to trademark an image currently in the U.S. public domain. The indication from the article is that Wal-Mart has no problem with it being public domain, but are now trying to trademark it in response to the actions of "the little guy". Had "the little guy" not tried to trademark the image, Wal-Mart would not be doing this.
I love my sig.
Walmart should be held to a higher level of truthfulness in their advertising and thus their grocery bags. I have never really seen associates or customers of Walmart smile. In fact, I see them frown a lot, or just have blank overconsumered looks on their faces. Whether in the returns line, the check out lines (sans human clerks now), or interacting with live clerks, a smile at Walmart is as plastic as the bags they are printed upon. Maybe they should copyright a frowning face, one that clearly captures the truth of the Walmart Experience (tm) :)
A logo can be protected under both trademark and copyright laws. In the US it gets copyright protection as a "graphic work" (17USC102(a)(5)), provided it is an original work in the sense that "original" is used in copyright law.
If they included its whistling personality and the song they use for the whistling, there is a GOOD chance they can copyright that specific interpretation of the smiley as a cartoon character, much in the way the Church of the Subgenius seems to hold the copyright for 'Bob's pipe-wielding visage, despite how common the image of a clean-cut 50's male with a pipe actually was in those times.
You're confusing copyrights and trademarks. They can't "copyright" the smiley face because they didn't create it. They can trademark it. But if the smiley face actually were under copyright, then they couldn't trademark it because you couldn't reproduce it (so they could never use it).
Legally, WalMart may be able to get away with registering a trademark on the smiley face, if it is really in the public domain. Ethically, that's wrong: the smiley face is a cultural icon that no company ought to be able to claim rights to.
However, one can throw a monkey wrench in their plans simply by re-creating the association between the smiley face and psychotic killers, since those seem to love the symbol. Given stories by WalMart employees, perhaps their choice of trademark isn't so inappropriate after all.
Yes, because everything Wal-Mart's PR department says is obviously the unbiased gospel truth. Just because someone didn't fill out the paperwork in the US, doesn't mean they're wrong. They have the trademark in 80 countries around the world already. This isn't a little guy or a big guy thing-- this is two companies battling over logos, akin to Apple vs Apple. In the end, this is going to be a pretty common news item as globalization continues to set in.
E pluribus unum
Applying for the trademark application is more like developing weapons technology, not using it. You then have the option to use those weapons if you need to, but also have the option to negotiate if you choose
Actually, while this may be the case with copyrights, it is not the case with trademarks. If you have a trademark, and someone infringes on it, and you don't vigorously defend it in a timely manner, you lose your exclusive rights to it.