Under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, a person can be held to have infringed upon a trademark for "tarnishing" it by using it in a negative context. The famous example is a case in which the slogan "Enjoy Cocaine" was used in Coca Cola's distinctive script and was judged an infringement without the more typical trademark litmus test of creating confusion in the marketplace.
"Parody under the law doesn't magically fend off trademark infringements," said Gregory Phillips, attorney with Howard Phillips and Andersen. "In our view, this is the same thing as 'Enjoy Cocaine.'"
they have, and you may also note that the post you reply to refers to a parody case in which the parody was done in the style of the parodied trademark, just as (in my not-a-lawyer opinion) "the new white meat" is being in the style of "the other white meat". That said, in my same non-lawyer opinion, parody should be a defence against trademark infringement just as it is copyright infringement.
However, after seeing this ad, I was going to go out and buy some pork. But then I saw the stupid C&D and have now decided to boycott all pork. And I'm sure my Jewish and Muslim friends will join in.
The way trademark law is, you HAVE to defend it or loose it. And The New White Meat is close enough to warrant a C&D just to show that you are trying to protect the trademark.
It is not copyright. If you don't defend your copyright you don't loose it until the alotted time expires. Same with a patent. But Trademarks are different. There are no set time limits on Trademarks meaning if you do not actively defend them, you loose 'em at any time.
If you are a trademark holder, you can't afford to write a
I agree, trademark laws should be loosened, or lost altogether. I'm at a loss to explain how I came to that decision though... I may just lose my mind. If that should happen, I pray they don't turn me loose on the unsuspecting public.
yeah -except the trademarked phrase is 'The Other White Meat' and TGs is The 'New White Meat'
You may have noted in the post you were replying to that the trademarked phrase there was "Enjoy Coca-cola" and the infringer's phrase was "Enjoy Cocaine". That they're marginally different is irrelevant, just like "The Other White Meat" and "The New White Meat".
But wait, you say, there's no likelihood of confusion! People know the difference between "other" and "new"!
Doesn't matter - 15 USC 1125(c) says that actual or likely confusion is not required, in cases of trademark dilution.
Not that TG loses, m
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
Parodies of trademarks are not protected (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
can't believe no one has pointed this out yet
-I'm just sayin'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way trademark law is, you HAVE to defend it or loose it. And The New White Meat is close enough to warrant a C&D just to show that you are trying to protect the trademark.
It is not copyright. If you don't defend your copyright you don't loose it until the alotted time expires. Same with a patent. But Trademarks are different. There are no set time limits on Trademarks meaning if you do not actively defend them, you loose 'em at any time.
If you are a trademark holder, you can't afford to write a
Re: (Score:2)
I say we loose all trademark laws. Why defend such retardedness?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah -except the trademarked phrase is 'The Other White Meat' and TGs is The 'New White Meat'
You may have noted in the post you were replying to that the trademarked phrase there was "Enjoy Coca-cola" and the infringer's phrase was "Enjoy Cocaine". That they're marginally different is irrelevant, just like "The Other White Meat" and "The New White Meat".
But wait, you say, there's no likelihood of confusion! People know the difference between "other" and "new"!
Doesn't matter - 15 USC 1125(c) says that actual or likely confusion is not required, in cases of trademark dilution.
Not that TG loses, m