Slashdot Mirror
Activists May Use Their Targets' Trademarks
lee1 writes "Sometimes political activists use a company's trademark as part of a campaign to embarrass it or call attention to an issue. And sometimes the company sues, claiming that they own the mark and its satirical use is prohibited. Now a Utah court has ruled that such suits must fail because the parodic use of the mark is not commercial and is a form of protected speech."
The companies in question should be forced to accept arbitration instead of lawsuits.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
..for free speech. I completely shocked that this came out of Utah.
I got here through a series of tubes
I can't wait for the BigCoSucks Federation* (*funded by Mega Incorporated) and MegaIncSuxx2** (**funded by Big Company) duke it out.
===
Any resemblance between Big Company and Mega Incorporated and any real entity is purely satirical and is not intended for commercial purposes. My lawyer made me say that.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
On behalf of Exxon/Mobil, I'd just like to say that it's about god damn time.
Don't worry. I'm sure the judge has twelve wives and seventy children under the age of 18.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes is already working on its appeal.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
Big Satire has a huge lobbing division and many offices in DC.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Isn't satirical work basically the definition of fair use?
They even own their own Senator!
While I cheer the outcome of this ruling, the reasoning behind it is, IMHO, not the correct one to decide the issue if applicability of a trademark. The reasoning should be based on the fact that an established trademark is the reference to a specific party in trade (e.g. a company, or even an individual where that applies). Normally we expect that the reference is made by that party itself. However, reference can be made by another party ... as long as the reference is the correct one.
The names of companies like Apple and Google, and the products of companies like Ipod or Windows, are trademarks that are established. As long as a reference to "Ipod" refers to the Apple product, and a reference to "Windows" refers to the Microsoft product, then they are correct usage of trademark. If I say "I own an Ipod", then I have committed no violation of that trademark (because I really do own one unit of that Apple product). If I blog about how "Windows is totally insecure", I may or may not be telling a truth about its security, but I'm still referring to the Microsoft product. It's not a trademark violation.
What I cannot do is make a misreference, especially if I am doing so as part of commerce. But it is already commonplace to make reference to competing products in a commercial context. It does get fuzzy here, because merely using the trademark icon may get out of context and be considered something that is attracting. If Pepsi were to put the CocaCola logo on the Pepsi web site in a very large image, and in smaller letters say "that product is not as good as ours", it could be mistaken as a use of the trademark to identify its own products. But if they keep the logo very small, especially with other soft drink logos around, and say things like "independent taste tests of all these products rank ours number one" then it can be clearly a statement of fact (which, if untrue, may be an issue of defamation ... but is not a trademark violation).
The above opinions are NOT a statement of how the law in the USA is, but rather, how I believe it SHOULD be, and how I hope judges would rule to make it be so, if we can't get rid of the Republicans in Congress to make the right statutes.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
But let's be frank here, the fallout usually drops on their head, then.
Or how do you feel about the lady that sued McD for hot coffee after spilling it on her lap by being DUMB enough to hold it there while driving? Or the microwaving-the-poodle incident?
The Streisand-Effect only works on companies that actually do something wrong. If they get sued by people too stupid to find their own ass with both hands, you'll usually see these people bearing the brunt.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You have a digestive issue with pita bread? It's bread. Perhaps you meants to joke about some other food?
what do they lob?
Yep I live in a dry county and I'd say they are a perfect example of how sin laws NEVER work and a free market will simply route around them like with a black market.
I know in my "dry" county there is at least two bootleggers in every neighborhood and most don't give a crap if you're 16 as long as you've got cash, and the cops don't say squat either as they don't want to drive 60 miles round trip just to get a 6 pack after work and they know they can get it at cost from the bootlegger (instead of the 40% markup) as long as they don't go busting the bootlegger, so we end up with MORE alcohol than if they would have simply made the county wet, and of course worse underage drinking since bootleggers don't card. Sadly since the chief source of money in this county is the local Xian college good luck ever getting it repealed.
As for TFA frankly I don't care where the hell that judge is from, it is DAMNED NICE to see a judge showing some common sense and standing up for something as important to this country as free speech. Bravo sir, and even if the Kock bros (spelling intentional) manage to bribe someone on appeals you should at least be commended for standing up for what is right. As for whether that PETA satire should have been busted, absolutely not. We should ALWAYS support free speech, period. Same as even though I don't believe or support his opinions I believe the one that wrote that "pro pedo" book should NOT have been busted for putting his thoughts on paper.
For as my grandfather taught me when I asked if he was mad at those Illinois Nazis for wanting to march after he had a wall dropped on him by Nazis in the closing days of WWII "No we should support their right to speak, even when what they say is hateful or evil, as it is what made this country great. There nobody was allowed to speak out against those brownshirts, but here we can counter protest and debate and speak our minds. That is what freedom is all about." He taught me that freedom is NEVER "free to agree with me only" and that to have a healthy society one had to tolerate ALL free speech and open debate, lest we end up as close minded and locked down as they were. Smart man my grandfather and I'm sure he would approve of this ruling whole heartedly.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Now a Utah court has ruled that such suits must fail because the parodic use of the mark is not commercial and is a form of protected speech.
People need to be careful about this distinction. The judge has clearly supported noncommercial parody's. But a for profit company like the Onion may still be at risk.
You could have registered apple-bites.com anyway. Just make it your blog about Granny Smiths and Red Delicious and you'd be fine.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Nobody else seems to be looking anything up, so I won't either.
IIRC, the woman bought a cup of coffee, and held it between her legs while parked. She removed the lid to add white liquid (probably not cream) and/or sugar, and the cup collapsed. The burns resulted in substantial medical bills, which she asked McDonald's to pay.
The critical factor here was that the cup was deemed to be too flimsy, and that McDonald's was negligent in not providing unusually hot liquids in cups that could stay intact once the lid was removed. The heat of the coffee is of interest only in that it resulted in greater scalding, although the hotter the liquid the more important that the cup hold it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes