Slashdot Mirror
Sue Googe Uses Google's Font To Run For US Congress (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Sue Googe is running to represent the 4th Congressional District of North Carolina in United States Congress. Since her last name resembles "Google," she has decided to use Google's font to help market her campaign. You can view a picture of Sue Googe standing next to two people holding her campaign signs here. You'll see that "Googe" is written just like "Google," but without the "l." Even the "e" in "Googe" is slanted like the "e" in "Google." "Sue" on the other hand, is not written in the same font as "Googe." It's possible the campaign accidentally selected this font, but upon closer inspection, that seems highly unlikely. It begs the question: Will Google sue Sue Googe? While we wait for Google to comment on the story, you can read all about Sue Googe on her website.
Remember one guy who used his fortunate name to start a company and wangle some deals from Microsoft?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Sue needs to employ a photographer for her website before she does anything, at least someone who has a basic grasp of colour balance. What an awful site.
for breach of privacy
Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.
It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit. They can afford really good lawyers. Trademark infringement cases have been won on shakier grounds.
Shouldn't that be Googe Sue - Or is Googe her husband's surname?
It begs the question:
Nope.
RTFA. You're not that clever.
Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.
Intent is a difficult thing to prove. FACT is that Google does not own the font.
Here's another "fact" Google has not yet done anything, this is all "The Verge" (whatever web site that is that is paying Slashdot for stories) and Slashdot whipping up some sulatious story where there really is NO STORY!
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
"Beg the question" doesn't mean "beg for the question." It means to avoid answering the question.
Intent is a difficult thing to prove.
Usually I'd agree with you. It wouldn't be hard to convince a jury in this particular instance, though.
Prior art is a Patent law concept. Patents are different to Trademarks and Copyright.
Of course they'll Sue Googe. It's right in her name.
That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit.
So will Google sue Sue Googe or will Sue Googe sue Google?
Now try to say that outloud five times.
Does her husband sometimes come home, grab her and say "I'm feeling lucky"?
#DeleteChrome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Google OWNS that font? It's not even the same font Google now uses. It's a "sans serif" font that is a little more "stylized" than Helvetica, but the "Google Font"? Sure, OK, whatever.
It's the exact same font that I see when I go to google.com but more importantly, it is more than just the font. The 'e' is really what makes it a copy of the google logo. That is not a part of the standard font. I think it's actually a brilliant plan and having the first name Sue makes it that much funnier. It gets her name out there and chances are that step one is going to be a cease/desist so the only cost that she'll be out is any material that she has printed but not distributed yet.
You must be fucking blind. The font Google uses for their logo is not the same as any other font.
Thatnk you for yout thoughtful comment.
Clearly you are not a designer or a font guy, so I will allow your completely asinin comment.
Fact is, Google might have "tweaked" the font, but they did not originate the basice font.
Simply a fact.
Fonts are an art form, and there are many variations. Very few including Google's font are "original".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I'm somewhat new to the industry, but my understanding is that there aren't copyright protections for fonts. So that won't work. However there is trademark protections, and the standard there is confusion.
If consumers think Googe and Google are affiliated then Googe might be in trouble.
Google to sue Sue Googe over Sue Googe's use of Google's font.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sulatious?
That's not very cromulent...
Trademark law would be useless if you could just drop a little bit of a trademark and call it your own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You could try to prove parody, but it's going to cost you a lot in legal fees if they try to sue. It's not an easy defense.
She is a republican.
That's not nearly enough for Google to win a lawsuit. Just because your brand is hurt -- for example, by every news agency in the world reporting that you've cheated on emissions tests -- does not mean that you can sue for trademark infringement.
To infringe a trademark, the accused infringer must be using the trademark in commerce:
News reporting is commerce, but is usually exempt from the potential infringement issue due to the first amendment and the concept of nominative fair use. To report upon businesses and products, you pretty much have to use trademarks to efficiently refer to them.
All snark aside, politics is not commerce. I don't see any indication from any of the summary's links that she's even selling items like hats, T-shirts, buttons, and other items. Which leaves you with a nebulous theory of "trademark dilution." But if you look even further down in the dilution subsection there's an exception for "Any noncommercial use of a mark." Which reemphasizes the fact that you can only control commercial uses of a trademark.
Thus, no. Google would be fools to take this to court, and really good lawyers would advise them that it is a really bad idea. Someone may get the bright idea to send a nasty letter, but Sue Googe would be an even bigger fool to pay attention to it. A lawsuit would provide the sort of publicity and news exposure that money cannot buy, and what exactly can Google claim for monetary damages? Come November, the campaign is over and any lawsuit would be dropped for being more trouble than it was worth.
Before or after they read this book? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Googe's intent was to use a font is clearly similar to Google's trademark.
It may have a potential to hurt Google's brand. That's enough for Google to win a lawsuit.
Honestly it feels like she did it on purpose, because she wants the publicity and sympathy a lawsuit by a huge company would bring.
All snark aside, politics is not commerce.
Not true. Look at Radiance Foundation v. NAACP and Hershey v Hershey. Political activity is a service.
Like in Hershey v Hershey there is no first ammendment case here. Googe is trying to co-opt a brand like Hershey was.
and her political opponent is Hak Facebok
Table-ized A.I.
hope she books a cruise on Boaty McBoatface to generate stories that really fuck your clock
Table-ized A.I.
Not true. Look at Radiance Foundation v. NAACP and Hershey v Hershey. Political activity is a service.
Ok. Let's look at Radiance:
That case agrees with my analysis, not yours.
I'm not going to waste my time analyzing a 4th circuit district court case that is still in progress and is in severe trouble in view of the intervening Radiance decision by the 4th circuit appellate court.
Care to try again?
Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark (or a substantially similar mark) on competing or related goods and services .
Unless Google's business is running for Congress I don't see how they would have a case for a lawsuit. Trademark has very limited scope compared to copyright and patent. You don't just trademark something and get exclusive rights to it for everything.
the defendant in a trademark infringement . . . case must use
the mark in connection with the goods or services of a competing
producer, not merely to make a comment on the trademark owner's
goods or services
In Googe's case the defendant is using the mark in connection with the defendant's service. This service is Googe's political activity. You have failed to show that political activity is not considered a service.
Radiance's use is protected under the first ammendment. Googe's is not. Clear and simple.
MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004)
It is not a service, and even if you consider political activity a service a campaign poster or advertisement is not a use in commerce.
The Nader case also usefully shows how difficult it would be to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion between the respective uses of Googe and Google.
So, again, a suit would be a really bad idea.
Really?!!
Except Google does own the font. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.
1. It's spelled "amendment." Once is a typo. Twice is an error that requires correction.
2. Radiance's use is protected under the first amendment, why? Radiance's use is not in connection with Radiance's service, why? Googe's political speech is not protected under the first amendment why? Disconnected tautologies do not constitute arguments.
3. MasterCard Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Comm., Inc., Case No. 00-cv-06068, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3644, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2004). Political activity is not a service, and is not use of a mark in connection with a service in commerce.
Googe's use is outside the scope of the act and has no realistic likelihood of confusion. It is clear and simple, just not in the manner that you believe.
FACT is, no one mentioned copyright, so who owns the font is irrelevant.
This is about trademarks and brand recognition.
Actually, I said that politics is not commerce.
Nader case:
"Even assuming the Nader Ad caused greater contributions to be made to his political campaign, this would not be enough to deem Ralph Nader's Ad 'commercial.' If so, then presumably, as suggested by defendants, all political campaign speech would also be 'commercial speech' since all political candidates collect contributions. Ralph Nader's Political Ad attempts to communicate that other presidential candidates can be bought, but that the 'truth,' represented by himself, cannot. The Nader Ad is a strong political message which expresses his personal opinion on presidential campaigning. The legislative history of the Lanham Act clearly indicates that Congress did not intend for the Act to chill political speech. In speaking about the amendments to Section 43(a) that expanded what was actionable as deceptive advertisements, one of the new law's sponsors, United States Representative Robert Kastenmeier, pointed out that political advertising and promotion are not meant to be covered by the term "commercial."
Kastenmeier statement:
134 Cong. Rec. H. 1297 (daily ed. April 13, 1989)
Your request for a showing has been granted. I look forward to your reply.
Of course you can. I once got a 'Blackborry' phone from China. I loved it (until it got some weird and rare form of screen cancer), but I'm pretty sure it did infringe the trademark of some Canadian company...
Could it not be argued that the signs could be interpreted as a subliminal command to "Sue" Google? Especially if the first name is a regular font and the last name made to look like Google, and especially people just glancing at the signs, not really reading them but seeing commands to Sue Google all day long? I'll admit it took a second for this headline to parse for me for this very reason.
So, her name isn't pronounced "Goodge" in one syllable, but "Goo-guh", so it sounds like Google without the L. If not, start calling her that and see how fast they switch fonts.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
that outloud, that outloud, that outloud, that outloud, that outloud.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
On the contrary, it embiggens his point perfectly.
You must be fucking blind. The font Google uses for their logo is not the same as any other font.
Thatnk you for yout thoughtful comment.
Clearly you are not a designer or a font guy, so I will allow your completely asinin comment.
Fact is, Google might have "tweaked" the font, but they did not originate the basice font.
Simply a fact.
Fonts are an art form, and there are many variations. Very few including Google's font are "original".
Googles Font is original, an original work does not have to be based off non original works, or no works at all. Google may have just tweaked the font, but as far as anyone can tell that tweak is original. It has trademark protection, because it is original... Under your definition of original nothing would be original, and therefore nothing would be protected, because everything is currently based on something else.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Except Google does own the font. It's not an off the shelf font. They took Futura and tweaked it to their liking. Googe used Google's version with all the tweaks.
Except the font is not the displayed letters, in legal terms; that is the typeface which are not copyrightable. Unless Google has a design patent on the typeface (the letters, numbers, etc...) they do not own its appearance. The font is the program that generates the typeface and it is copyrightable. The font name can be trademarked as well.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
FACT: humans read familiar looking words looking at the first and last letters mostly. When you make the 'e' at the end all slanty that just re-enforces the likelyhood you'll read googe as google. I did the first time, and without the context of why is the a story, I would not have gone back.
She is trying to pass as "Sue Google"
Now I'll be surprised if Google does sue Sue Googe, for two reasons.
1) It will bring more attention and confusion if they get involved in a legal battle not less. The law may or may not be a little more murky about using what is and has been your own name, even when its similar to someones mark, I don't know. The court of public opinion however certainly is more murky. Its unclear how it will play to have Google "beating up on" an immigrant running for congress.
2) Google is a lot braver than most organizations when it comes to taking liberties with their own mark. Very few marketing departments would have the courage to do something like the doodle. Most are busy getting upset when someone puts the logo on an unapproved background color. You can get away with alot when you are a verb.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Actually she's a Republican... Which explains her cavalier attitude towards intellectual property when she's the one doing the infringing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What I don't understand is why she wants to sue Google.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Exactly. The question is, "does Google's trademark extend to political candidates?"
(If the answer is "yes," of course, then the logical follow-up is "which office is Larry Page or Sergey Brin planning on running for?")
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Hey, at least she wasn't using comic sans.
Wow, surprised we've gone this long on this thread without that obvious joke font joke.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
She is trying to pass as "Sue Google"
Would Barney Google need to "pass"?
Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark (or a substantially similar mark) on competing or related goods and services .
"Infringement" is not the only cause of action for unauthorized use of a trademark. Another is "dilution", which involves use of a famous trademark by another without authorization in a way that diminishes the mark's uniqueness, even in an unrelated field of use. Try selling "Coca-Cola" brand spark plugs, for instance.
Prior art is a Patent law concept.
And in the United States, a type designer secures exclusive rights in his new typeface by applying for a design patent.
It probably depends on if she is a Democrat or a Republican.
Hard to tell from her website, her positions are a blend of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. (3rd party site: Republican)
She is running against a Democrat, but it is North Carolina, she does not have to downplay being a Rep, like if she were running in New York.
America’s lethargic economy is due to out-of-control spending, corporate welfare, a burdensome tax code, undeclared and expensive wars, an unsustainable trade deficit, and policies that punish success.
The government has a duty to protect it’s citizens from physical, mental, and financial harm by others, not to create more criminals through a disproportional system of punishment.
vrs
As your representative, I will support legislation that replaces the current tax code with a new system based on a low flat tax that is fair for all Americans.
In order to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, we must eliminate the barriers that make it impossible for us to compete and create a business friendly environment right here at home.
But there are also centrist ideas:
The U.S. Constitution is very clear, our nation should only go to war when the President has received Congressional approval.
America should have the strongest military on the planet, but that does not mean we should be the policemen of the world. The United States has a leadership role to play in the world but that does not always mean military action or intervention.
And libertarian ideas:
America was founded on the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and equal opportunity for all.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
So when will Google sue Sue Googe?
Are we making the assumption that she has no legal team, and didn't ask for permission (which may not be necessary since fonts can't be copyrighted) from Google?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I forget the legal term, but she's clearly trying to conflate her running and Google in the minds of voters, or at the very least, to claim that they're endorsing her.
False color something , maybe?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"Don't be Evi" - where her opponent in the election is "Evi Appe" - who is using Apple's font.
As far as trademark law goes, the way I see it is that Google is not a political candidate and Googe is not a technology company, so they don't conflict.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Why the hell is a politician using colors other than red, white, or blue in the US? Plus throw a damn star in there. Those two factors increase your chances of election by something like 11%.
Tootie Smith, Clackamas County Commissioner in Oregon, is using campaign posters in the style of "Tootsie" rolls - an American candy product.
Excellent job turning gibberish into cashflow!
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
In a country where money is speech, politics is commerce.
A typeface is a design. a font is a typeface at a specific size.
Think back to movable type. You talk to your designer, "i want this headline in Palatino" or whatever. You get it in your head. Then you get to brass tacks, and have to go to a drawer, and pull out type at a specific size. That's a font.
With TrueType and Postscript and Digital Presses, it's kind of all blended and become cloudy. But I'd wish there was a bit more specificness from actual News Outlets. Oh well.
perhaps ?
Excellent job turning gibberish into cashflow!
Thank you. That will be $1000.00
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The better question is, "Why would she want to associate herself with a company that abandoned 'Don't Be Evil' as a motto?" Her opponent could have a field day with that.
The way copyright works, and fonts are copyrighted, is that new works based on previous works have a new copyright. So if Google "tweaked" a previous font, Google owns the copyright on the resultant font (as well as the owners of the previous font, if Google did so without permission or proper license).
So, even if you are 100% right on the origin of the font, that in no way supports your implied conclusion that Google has no grounds.
Learn to love Alaska
tisn't
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I tried to Googe this article, but couldn't find anything. Is it real??
Some settling may occur during posting.
If they put it on a tshirt, do charitable fundraising or provide grants?
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/...
...just to be confusing.
Well the point isn't could they but should they. It would be awfully bad PR.
J