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.
Im shocked it came out of a US court at all.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Im shocked it came out of a US court at all.
You may not have to endure that shock for long.
An appeal may be forthcoming, with a properly prepped judge.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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.
The culture is extremely different. You could make a plausible case that the state was founded as a theocracy, and that those roots are still very much there.
Just note the state's rules on alcohol.
The state has no open-door saloons. Full liquor service is available only to dues-paying members of "private" social clubs or at the 470 restaurants with liquor stocks they cannot advertise, display or even mention unless a customer asks first.
The state's 121 taverns can pour only "light" beer, or 3.2 percent alcohol, and no other alcoholic drinks. No membership is required at taverns. Grocery stores can sell only light beer, too.
Wine, hard liquor and heavy beer can be purchased at 36 state-run liquor stores - if you can find them. Typically they are tucked away in warehouse districts and off major thoroughfares.
A quota limits the number of private clubs to one per 7,000 Utah residents, or 295 clubs concentrated primarily in Salt Lake County and Park City. Minimum club dues by law are $12 a year, though visitors can buy a two-week membership for $5. Or visitors can ask the guy on the next barstool to sponsor them as guests.
I grew up in the bible belt and WE weren't even that strict.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
No, parody is. Satire would be Wayne Gretzky using a picture of Mickey Mouse to say that the New Jersey Devils are a "mickey-mouse" organization. Parody would be a comedy show using the New Jersey Devils logo in a comedy piece on the matter. Actually, they could probably get away with a picture of Mickey Mouse at that point as well.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Not for trademarks, it isn't. Fair use of trademarks extends primarily to "nominative use". That is, we get to use your name when we're talking about you. Any other attempt to profit from the mark is controlled by the company. It should be fairly clear that you can use "Foo(tm)" to declare that "Foo(tm) Sucks", but if there's a chance of consumer confusion between your use of the mark and the company's, you get into murky legal waters. The court literally ends up having to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the joke is actually funny.
As with everything else in law, there are about a million complications, caveats, and such like. A good article on the subject:
http://www.cll.com/articles/trademark-parody-statutory-and-nominative-fair-use-under-the-lanham-act#PARODY%20AS%20FAIR%20USE
This is not about free speech. The companies MUST file a law suit, because otherwise they loose their trademark.
This has nothing to do with satirical or political or whatever. If they don't sue or at least protest,they loose the trademark.
Nope.
Overview of Trademark Law: "The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent."
So - unless the political activists are trying to sell a similar product or service that will confuse consumers then it cannot infringe, and the companies filing the suits know that very, very well.
You are just trying to justify a sub-class of SLAPP suits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
My father grew up in a small mining town in Utah. His family was not Mormon, and it made life much harder than it needed to be. My grandpa, uncle, and father were passed over for promotion, harassed, excluded, refused service at businesses, charged extortionate prices for services such as funerals, contractors, automobile repair, etc.
They were pressured to join the Mormon church. The relatives I have who stayed there all caved in and now toe the line. They gripe and mock in private, but they go to meetings and tithe.
It is better in SLC (or as I've seen it humorously abbreviated SL,UT) - it is easy for tourists or short term visitors to forget they are in the beehive state. Things take a darker turn if you are perceived as wanting to become a permanent resident.
Man, you really need that seminar!