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."
Forest Gump?
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
:(
That's it... (cat filter)
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Whatever the outcome, I'm sure the loser will be entitled to use the SaddyFace.
And since this is a trademark dispute, can't SmileyWorld keep selling its smiley icons while Wal-Mart keep sellings its items. I don't see a dispute here unless Wal-Mart employees start smiling.
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
In the article, the spokesman's name is Simley. Why is it an anagram of smiley??? WHY?!
Limina.Log
Don't worry... be litigious....
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".
There is no emoticon for how I am feeling.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
Despair Inc. already has the frowny emoticon trademarked.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Harvey R. Ball invented the yellow smiley in 1963 for a life insurance company. He was paid $45.
This space available.
Threesome
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
Wal-Mart's smiley face is a very distinctive one - the elongated eyes, the wide smile, the button-ised bevel around its edges, the ray-man-esque gloves. 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.
I think Wal-mart is full of shit here if they think they can claim they invented the smiley or patented its use in drumming up sales, but if they keep to that narrow interpretation I just described, they have a chance.
I've been producing shit since I was born, but you don't see me suing Slashdot.
Plastic Legos began production in 1963, they've had smiley faces on them ever since, Duplo's were introduced in 1967, they have smileys.
Suck it.
"See, we plan ahead! That way, we never have to do anything now."
In a deft move by Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, Wal-Mart mistakenly trademarks the Simley face.
This sig intentionally left justified.
You forgot to say "I'm not a lawyer, so you shouldn't listen to me."
You can copyright a logo.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The universe would not allow such a coincidence. The guy's name, according the the article, is actually John Simley.
Apparently, patent and trademark law has changed in the last 20 years to
"Patent and Trademark EVERYTHING, Including the wheel. It will get accepted, and unless you fight it out in court, and LOSE, people should pay you money for using it."
Frivility is a non-issue at this point.
I think walmart and the other guy need a good solid kick in the pants.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
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
You didn't read the name right just like I did on the first pass on the article.
From the article "Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley told the Los Angeles Times"
Smiley and Simley are not the same.
The truth shall set you free!
SCM
If I remember correctly, the sad face: :-(
is already trade marked by Despair Inc.
http://www.despair.com/frownonthis.html
And it is already registered. So I don't see why one can't register a trade mark from the smily face.
No, slashdot needs an overhaul. Happy Birthday is copyrighted, Wal-Mart is trying to trademark the smiley face, and now you mentioned patents for no reason. Those are three different things.
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
Haha! Way to conveniently edit out the sentence that says "yes, you can copyright a logo." That showed him I bet!
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_031.html
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
Has CowboyNeal filed the trademarks for the "/" and the "." yet? One would think that would be an excellent money-making opportunity for slashdot.
"A Frenchman who claims to have invented the yellow smiley face back in 1968"
After all, this is a very well known fact that only Frechman is capable of being yellow AND have a smiley face. Fact proven during WWII, case closed. Give the patent to the Frechy.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
No, it likely counts. But only for the original author. If someone else comes along and makes the same basic illustration, based upon the earlier one, then they haven't contributed anything new. And only the new contribution would be copyrightable.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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) :)
So you agree it's a coverup then? ;-)
"Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley"
Cost of a spokesperson : $40K a year
Cost of a spokesperson with a name that sounds like an advertising gimick of the company: Priceless.
For everything else there's Walmart Visa cards.
Oh You POS
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.
I think Wal-mart is full of shit here...
That may be true, but they're also full of money, the thing that really counts in the court system.
May the Maths Be with you!