Trademark Follies Continue...
Quick roundup from the world I used to inhabit, trademark law and its basic insanity.
Did you know that FLUFFERNUTTER was a trademark? I sorta remember that the label for the seemingly ever-present jar of Marshmallow Fluff had a variety of "circle-R" symbols, but not that clearly. Anyway, it seems that there's only one company that makes Fluff and they're rather defensive about Williams-Sonoma hitting the street with a candy bar named after a common after-school sandwich. Intellectual property law meets Fluff. (Boston Globe)
Not to be outdone in the slightly (or completely) crazed department, DC/Marvel Comics (the unholy survivor of a sad corporate saga from a few years back) has decided to claim exclusive rights in the term SUPER-HERO and is looking to block everyone else from using that term. The case against them is deceptively complex -- how would one prove that the term "super-hero" is not associated with DC or Marvel, or that the term does not designate the source of stories and comics and more ephemera (t-shirts, keyrings, etc.) than you can shake a stick at? Coverage from Slashdot and Boing Boing.
As reported over at Her Jazz, Philly's phinest reinterpretation of the Beasties is having a bit of trouble over at MySpace. Seems that someone isn't too keen on a MySpace profile titled "Yah Mos Def" -- unfortunately (as I noted in MTS' comments -- scroll WAY down the page) the other guy may have the superior claim.
One of the more vigorous defenders of the faith (when it comes to monopolizing and controlling culture, intellectual property, and their expressions) is the Walt Disney Company. Most of their offenses are in the copyright domain, where there's a Constitutional expectation that creators cannot control their works forever. At the same time, I can't really figure out how these t-shirts (courtesy of Boing Boing and its loyal readers) continue to see the light of day.
The Apple v. Apple litigation has gotten some attention, as has the recent news that old and "new" Beatles tunes, remastered yet again, may soon appear for sale
on "proper" on-line outlets. As much as I believe in the doctrine of
"reverse confusion" in trademark infringement cases, I'm somewhat
inclined to say that Apple Corps has harmed itself by not creating a
larger profile or public association with its name and mark. The
litigation is more about breach of a licensing agreement, however,
further muddying the waters.
Finally, adding insult to injury for the Research in Motion gang, China Unicom has announced plans to produce a mobile e-mail device called the "Redberry." What happens when RIM launches its Blackberry through China Telecom shortly -- would the first one to market prevail in a fight? Would a Chinese court uphold the rights of the Canadians over a home-grown product, even one that unabashedly chose its name as a tribute to the sledgehammer that destroyed all distinctions between "work" and "personal life"? Stay tuned...
Leave a comment