34 thoughts on “You know it’s going to be a strange day when…

    • As far as copyright law is concerned, yes. US copyright law specifically carves out an exception to copyright protection for parody and satire.

      Trademark law, though, is a whole different ball o’ wax. Trademarks are protected in much the same way patents are (and are administered by the same agency, the US Patent and Trademark Office). There are no “fair use” or parody exemptions for trademark infringement.

      • Is parody protected only under “fair use” or is it a more fundamental First Amendment protection? I would be pretty surprised if one couldn’t make fun of a trademark, though I can certain imagine that the devil is in the details.

          • Hmmm, yes, they definitely are phrasing this in terms of fair use. So then I wonder if there’s any decisions about parodies of trademarks as opposed to copyrighted material.

          • Good question. Trademark law is completely different from copyright law, and different rules apply. I know that it’s very difficult to get away with using someone else’s trademark even in clear-cut cases of parody (a Web site I used to love, which had parodies of famous corporate trademarks, got taken down very quickly after it went up; my personal favorite was a Radio Shack logo that said “You’ve got money. We’ve got pockets.” underneath it).

    • this is what IP lawyers do… they have to protect the intellectual property of their clients.

      This was a very nice and specific letter. This is really the first line of defense: the cease-and-desist letter.

      <---took an intellectual property law class. it was interesting.

    • They really have no choice. There’s a strange quirk in US trademark law: if a person’s trademark is infringed and the peron doesn’t do anything about it, he loses the trademark. Trademark owners are required to pursue trademark infringement in order to protect their trademarks.

      In this particular case, I didn’t realize the name “Myers-Briggs®” was a trademark.

      • I remember hearing something about “Loving More” magazine having to deal with that about when the name was used on a TV show (studio 50 I think). said that they didn’t WANT to tell them not to use it, but if they didn’t then anybody could.

        Internet spambot corporations and parody test…when do you have time to sleep?

      • A lot of formerly-proprietary product names have fallen victim to this; ‘aspirin’ and ‘zipper’ immediately come to mind (as does ‘heroin’…). I think the two most fiercely defended trademarks – as the two at greatest risk of becoming generic – are Coke® and Band-Aid®. (Note how the latter advertises itself: “I am stuck on Band-Aid brand…”) It’s big business. – ZM

  1. this is what IP lawyers do… they have to protect the intellectual property of their clients.

    This was a very nice and specific letter. This is really the first line of defense: the cease-and-desist letter.

    <---took an intellectual property law class. it was interesting.

  2. Surprisingly nice letter. Honestly, I don’t see any issue with trademark owners protecting their brand equity – it’s a valuable commodity. A recent example I’m familiar with is a certain company went after a lube being marketed as Juicy Fruit flavor. The flavor and symbol are protected. Given the brand equity in the “wholesome” idea of “juicy fruit”, and the $ spent protecting and promoting said brand, I can understand why they wouldn’t want it associated with an unrelated product.

  3. Surprisingly nice letter. Honestly, I don’t see any issue with trademark owners protecting their brand equity – it’s a valuable commodity. A recent example I’m familiar with is a certain company went after a lube being marketed as Juicy Fruit flavor. The flavor and symbol are protected. Given the brand equity in the “wholesome” idea of “juicy fruit”, and the $ spent protecting and promoting said brand, I can understand why they wouldn’t want it associated with an unrelated product.

  4. As far as copyright law is concerned, yes. US copyright law specifically carves out an exception to copyright protection for parody and satire.

    Trademark law, though, is a whole different ball o’ wax. Trademarks are protected in much the same way patents are (and are administered by the same agency, the US Patent and Trademark Office). There are no “fair use” or parody exemptions for trademark infringement.

  5. They really have no choice. There’s a strange quirk in US trademark law: if a person’s trademark is infringed and the peron doesn’t do anything about it, he loses the trademark. Trademark owners are required to pursue trademark infringement in order to protect their trademarks.

    In this particular case, I didn’t realize the name “Myers-Briggs®” was a trademark.

  6. I remember hearing something about “Loving More” magazine having to deal with that about when the name was used on a TV show (studio 50 I think). said that they didn’t WANT to tell them not to use it, but if they didn’t then anybody could.

    Internet spambot corporations and parody test…when do you have time to sleep?

  7. A lot of formerly-proprietary product names have fallen victim to this; ‘aspirin’ and ‘zipper’ immediately come to mind (as does ‘heroin’…). I think the two most fiercely defended trademarks – as the two at greatest risk of becoming generic – are Coke® and Band-Aid®. (Note how the latter advertises itself: “I am stuck on Band-Aid brand…”) It’s big business. – ZM

  8. Somehow, I totally missed this page on your site… until now! Thanks!

    Oh, and I thought they did a fantastic job of giving you specific suggestions for changes to be made. Nice of them to let you know exactly what would be acceptable. 🙂

    • Yep. They did do a good job; I haven’t received many legal notices over my Web site, but I have received a few (mostly over the spam pages), and they’ve generally been a lot more hostile.

      They’ve also had less ground to stand on. I wonder if the two are related.

  9. Somehow, I totally missed this page on your site… until now! Thanks!

    Oh, and I thought they did a fantastic job of giving you specific suggestions for changes to be made. Nice of them to let you know exactly what would be acceptable. 🙂

  10. Is parody protected only under “fair use” or is it a more fundamental First Amendment protection? I would be pretty surprised if one couldn’t make fun of a trademark, though I can certain imagine that the devil is in the details.

  11. Yep. They did do a good job; I haven’t received many legal notices over my Web site, but I have received a few (mostly over the spam pages), and they’ve generally been a lot more hostile.

    They’ve also had less ground to stand on. I wonder if the two are related.

  12. Hmmm, yes, they definitely are phrasing this in terms of fair use. So then I wonder if there’s any decisions about parodies of trademarks as opposed to copyrighted material.

  13. Good question. Trademark law is completely different from copyright law, and different rules apply. I know that it’s very difficult to get away with using someone else’s trademark even in clear-cut cases of parody (a Web site I used to love, which had parodies of famous corporate trademarks, got taken down very quickly after it went up; my personal favorite was a Radio Shack logo that said “You’ve got money. We’ve got pockets.” underneath it).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.