Geek Squad Sends Cease-and-Desist Letter To God Squad 357
An anonymous reader writes "A Wisconsin priest has God on his car but Best Buy's lawyers on his back. Father Luke Strand at the Holy Family Parish in Fond Du Lac says he has received a cease-and-desist letter from the electronics retailer. From the article: 'At issue is Strand's black Volkswagen Beetle with door stickers bearing the name "God Squad" in a logo similar to that of Best Buy's Geek Squad, a group of electronics troubleshooters. Strand told the Fond du Lac Reporter that the car is a creative way to spur discussion and bring his faith to others. Best Buy Co. tells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that it appreciates what Strand is trying to do, but it's bad precedent to let groups violate its trademarks.'"
Logo (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And we all know what Geek Squad logo looks like.
I was just going to post the same thing. Looking through 12 pages of "geek squad" images, I don't see any images that Best Buy uses that could be confused with this one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Logo (Score:5, Funny)
The Geek Squad colors are reversed. Orange up top black on bottom.
Does that mean that Geek Squad is Satanic?
Re:Logo (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Best Buy isn't mad eup of Satanists. They appreciate what he's trying to do.
Best Buy Co. tells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that it appreciates what Strand is trying to do, but it's bad precedent to let groups violate its trademarks.
That just gives me yet another reason to not shop at Best Buy. Never mind they annoying and idiotic employees, they appreciate evangelists!
Re: (Score:2)
Was there every any doubt?
Orange and Black? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(instead of the religious holiday All Hallow's eve, or the older Celtic Fall holiday).
Exactly, satan worship. Heathen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There are other religions, you know.
Blasphemy!
Madness!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah the logo is similar but parodies have been ruled as protected speech by the Supreme Court. Best Buy's lawsuit would get thrown-out.
Normally I'd say "Fuck you Best Buy," but I think "Smite thee!" might be more appropriate. It is unwise to mess with the Creator of the universe. Even megacorps are not that powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
Except this isn't a parody. A parody would be like "Jock squad."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope; there's a winner-take-all clause. If you can demonstrate that your mark is famous (and the Geek Squad mark might be), you can control it in all markets. It's a horrible law (like much of copyright, trademark, and patent law), but it's there.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Geek squad goes around ostensibly fixing computers, but they can't fix a soul.
Or a computer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they are- its just that all the profit goes to the priests instead of to shareholders. Have you seen how fucking rich some of those evangelical preachers are? Or the Vatican for that matter?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but you have to remember that God is just a 'creator of the universe' impersonator. And He is the one who is really unwise to mess with the Creator.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to post the same thing. Looking through 12 pages of "geek squad" images, I don't see any images that Best Buy uses that could be confused with this one.
I hope that's sarcasm, there's plenty of similarity between the "God Squad" logo they used on their Beetle and the "Geek Squad" logos on their Beetles, changing the letters in one word makes it a pretty simple case of trademark rip-off.
I think it's easy to tell the difference just by reading the top word, but Best Buy can't afford to allow an unauthorized entity to reappropriate their trademark.
Re: (Score:2)
I should add to this that there is probably an exemption for parody, it would be a stretch to call this a parody use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe there is also an exception to a different line of business. It would be quite a stretch to say this religious man is any way trying to claim to work on breaking computers. Just as Apple Records was unable to win out against Apple Computers because Apple Computers was not in the music business, Best Buy is in the overcharging and breaking computers business, and this guy is in the religious business. Unless Best Buy is looking at expanding into religion...God help us all...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He might be able to get away with 'God Squad' but he still needs a new logo.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It would be quite a stretch to say this religious man is any way trying to claim to work on breaking computers.
I don't know... Listening to some of the expletives around the office, I believe many people are invoking the help of a deity in hopes that their computer issues don't wreak havoc on the work they've done so far.
Re:Logo (Score:5, Funny)
and in some cases prayer may work better than geek squad
Re:Logo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Logo (Score:4, Informative)
Best Buy could do the right thing and still protect their trademark by offering to license his usage for a token fee like $1.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that's sarcasm, there's plenty of similarity between the "God Squad" logo they used on their Beetle and the "Geek Squad" logos on their Beetles, changing the letters in one word makes it a pretty simple case of trademark rip-off.
No sarcasm intended. I thought they were referring to the image in the article summary on the front page, which can be seen here [universityparkchurch.com]. Still, I think Best Buy is being fairly petty, and there's virtually no room for anyone to get confused between the two might do.
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't... Geek squad car [geeksquad.com]. It is basically the same, isn't it?
Simple solution for these cases (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that legally companies have to enforce trademarks or risk losing them. However, for a case like this where there is no actual damage to their business and no real risk of confusion, the best solution from a PR perspective would be to offer a royalty-free license to the trademark and its variant to the person in question.
You know, instead of the traditional "cease-and-desist" letter, you could send a "we notice you borrowed from our logo - we are required to contact you by trademark law, and we will offer you a royalty-free license for this use, in a limited context, if you get in touch with us".
That would completely avoid the nasty press these companies for doing this, and keep the trademark lawyers happily occupied.
Why can't we live in the kind of more civil society where we look for positive solutions to problems in this way instead of simply defaulting to the negative?
Re:Simple solution for these cases (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, maybe that would be a good idea, but in practice it's walking into dangerous territory. First off, it could be seen as endorsement of this guys message, and corporations generally try to avoid religious endorsements since it puts them at odds with all other religions. This gets especially tricky if then other religions start to ask for the same treatment. What if an Islamist group wants to do the same thing? If Best Buy says no, they piss off 1.4 billion Muslims, and also look discriminatory. If they say yes, they piss off a nation full of fear mongerers and bigots who accuse them of terrorism. There's a million other ways that could go poorly, Best Buy really has no choice but to put a stop to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would be fine as long as they don't drive the car anywhere near Ground Zero.
Re:Simple solution for these cases (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you should reread the GP again. He referred to "a nation full of fear mongerers and bigots who accuse them of terrorism". He did not claim that all Christians were fear mongers and bigots he said the nation was.
And after the all the crontroversy over the planned Islamic information centre (not a mosque as the media portrays) near ground zero it's a fair assessment. Especially since there are other Islamic information centres in the area that pre-date the completion of the first World Trade Center building.
But hey, when did fear mongers and bigots let silly things like facts get in the way.
Re:Simple solution for these cases (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were only one time it might be ok, but religious groups seem to think themselves exempt from trademark and copyright law.
There are lots of stories of religious groups copying whatever they like to put religious propaganda on them. I remember when the lord of the rings came out, one group took the movie poster, replaced "Ring" with "King" and replaced Gandalph with Jesus. Now you may say that's just parody, but I don't really buy it when the point is to promote a religious message, not poking fun of the original.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not sue Slashdot, it is owned by Geeknet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Atheists know that god doesn't exist, they hope that god doesn't notice that they exist. It's a lot to worry about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah! Just like we hope that Santa or the Easter Bunny doesn't notice us.
This just proves (Score:2)
That Geeks > God. At least in their minds...
Re: (Score:2)
I could understand if this were a revival of ancient religions.
Greek God Squad.
Of course, you would be hard pressed to find a geek that met the physical standards applied to any greek god.
Well, other than Hephaestus, the first Geek.
Re: (Score:2)
Dionysus
Re:This just proves (Score:4, Insightful)
David v. Goliath (Score:2)
Hey, "Best Buy" has got some issues if God ever figures out how to file an amicus brief.
For prior art, "God Squad" existed well ahead of "Geek Squad". But, if t he issue is the "Black and White", sorry, police departments around the country have that one. If its the logo on the door, if the priest changes it to a nice blue and white shield, or even a cross and avoids the oval shape, then Best Buy has nothing.
Obviously overzealous (Score:2)
The lawyers are just being overzealous in this case.
God and Geek are not easily confused.
Squad is generic.
And the story, is inappropriately tagged with copyright when this is a trademark issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The logo on the side of the Beetle is pretty close, IMHO. I don't think it's overzealous. It's pretty blatant.
Re: (Score:2)
Serves me right for basing my justification based on the summary, especially when part of my post complained that there were errors in that exact summary.
Re: (Score:2)
The logo on the side of the Beetle is pretty close, IMHO. I don't think it's overzealous. It's pretty blatant.
So is it your opinion that confused customers will be contacting the 'God Squad' for help with their computers?
Re: (Score:2)
So is it your opinion that confused customers will be contacting the 'God Squad' for help with breaking their computers?
You should always write it as above, all us true geeks know that no geek works for geek squad. I have never heard of them doing anything other then reinstalling the OS for every problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They are not being necessarily being overzealous. In the US, trademarks MUST be defended to be valid. If they failed to defend against this possible trademark issue, then the next guy that does a geek squad look alike can point to this case to strengthen his case that the trademark has become generic.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they just give official permission then? That's still defending the trademark right?
Re:Obviously overzealous (Score:4, Funny)
There's more overlap than you may think. Geek Squad caters to many Windows users. Anyone on Slashdot running Windows knows that prayers are a big part of it continuing to work on a day to day basis.
Re: (Score:2)
REPENT YOU SINNERS!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Trademarks aren't enforced on a word-by-word basis. The issue would be the similarity of the logo as a whole.
The trademark claim may be invalid since the priest is not selling electronics or technical support, and presumably isn't using it in a commercial context at all. On the other hand, I'm not sure you could rule out a claim of dillution.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm not sure you could rule out a claim of dillution.
Dilution seems to require either commercial use or tarnishment.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only if your sysadmin isn't doing his job properly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The lawyers are just being overzealous in this case.
God and Geek are not easily confused.
Squad is generic.
Trademarks must be considered in their entirety. The fact that "squad" is generic is irrelevant, because the entire mark and the entire alleged infringing use must be compared. The "Geek Squad" trademark is most certainly not generic.
Furthermore, the fact that two words are different is not dispositive for confusion. Instead, the question is the likelihood of confusion of the source. Might a consumer think "God Squad" is a subsidiary of "Geek Squad" or otherwise related? Maybe "God Squad" is the team of se
Parody? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Parody? (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, doesn't apply because it's not ironic, and it's not targeted at the Geek Squad.
If you did a car that looked like the geek squad car, with a logo that was the same except it said, "Week Squad" and ran around fixing peoples computers with a sledgehammer, and filming it...THAT would be parody.
Or in this case, if these people ran around praying over peoples computers and did it specifically to make fun of the Geek Squad, that would be legit.
Having the same logo on a legitimate enterprise isn't protected by parody/freedom of expression laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest that he remove the image and claim the higher moral ground.
Is this really something he wants to go into battle over?!? I'm sure he has better things to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL, but AFAIK parody requires the work to be a commentary on the original work. God Squad would have to be about Geek Squad in a substantial way. Also, they would have to use a minimal amount of protected material, and certain other thresholds.
Satire does not require a work to be a commentary on the original work. God Squad could be about anything, and be re-appropriating Geek Squad material for humorous effect. But Satire is not protected in this country in the same way that Parody is.
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Trademark (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it matters if they offer different services. It would be the same as someone opening a seafood restaurant called Walleye-mart.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It matters a great deal.
That might be grounds for a dilution claim depending on details since it would be being used to advertise a product. This guy, however, isn't selling anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Walleye-mart would be OK if it was just the name of the seafood restaurant, but if the their logo were styled closely after the Wall-mart logo, then they might run into trouble, I believe, because it would have a strong likelihood of making people think that the restaurant is associated with Wall-mart.
Re:Trademark (Score:5, Informative)
From 1114. Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers [cornell.edu] emphasis mine
(a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
(b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,
Then again, IANAL
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm pretty sure, if it came down to it, I'd rather call the priest to deal with my computer issues.
My computer is full of daemons.
In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
unfair competition (Score:5, Funny)
They were probably just worried that "prayer" might prove more effective than the typical geek squad employee and cut into business.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:unfair competition (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, you hafta recite the Chant of Damnation* at least once every time you go through the Ritual of Restarting in order to appease the machine spirit.
Failure to do so is the leading cause of bluescreens (little known fact!)
*You know, the one that goes "Damn Windows, damn Microsoft, damn Gates...."
Re: (Score:2)
As a tech, I find that prayer is often a tool in my methodology when working with windows...
You must be an exception, cursing seems to be the norm... then again in Microsoft's defense it seems to be one thing uniting developers, server administrators and support people. I think it's got something to do with the computer not caring so you really can tell it what a goddamned fucked up piece of shit it is without it taking offense.
non-commercial use? (Score:2)
Does a church qualify for non-commercial use?
Even if they're using it to proselytize / promote / market / attract paying customers / their particular flavor of god?
Selling God is big business.
Srsly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Srsly? (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, here goes. The issue is not that the church is creating customer confusion by between its services and Best Buy's. The issue is that its misappropriation of the trademark *dilutes* the value of that trademark to its rightful owner.
There are classes of ways in which dilution can occur, both of which potentially apply here: loss of distinctiveness, and tarnishment. (1) Best Buy has invested considerable money in creating a recognizable symbol. By misappropriating that symbol, the church is denying them the benefit of that investment by reducing the distinctiveness of the service mark. (2) Many of Best Buy's potential customers may have negative opinions of the Catholic Church because of its handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal. The church's misuse of Best Buy's service mark "tarnishes" that mark with a scandal to which Best Buy is not a party. Even supposing you think such a reaction to the scandal is unreasonable and excessive, that reaction should be the church's problem, not Best Buy's. If Best Buy drove around in cars emblazoned with the ecclesiastical arms of the local archbishop, he'd have a right to object that the dignity of his see shouldn't be tied to the quality of service Best Buy offers its customers.
Both of these arguments hinge on the fact that the logo used on the vehicles is obviously a copy of the Geek Squad logo. It is simply not credible that the priest arrived at this design on his own. If he'd come up with the "God Squad" name and his own logo, that would be a different matter. You can have a "Speedy Pizza Delivery" and a "Speedy Muffler Service" because they're in different industries, but if the pizza shop copies the Speedy Muffler trademark to promote their business, they've gone over the line.
In summary, there gray areas in trademark use, but this use is not one of them. Clearly the church is violating Best Buy's trademark rights. I don't think they are intending harm, and I think in cases of such non-commercial uses it might be nice if the trademark owner was polite and understanding rather than threatening. Nonetheless, the church really ought to cease and desist using Best Buy's trademark for its own purposes, even if it believes those purposes are admirable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, here goes. The issue is not that the church is creating customer confusion by between its services and Best Buy's. The issue is that its misappropriation of the trademark *dilutes* the value of that trademark to its rightful owner.
Nice analysis, but you missed one part that you touched on:
In summary, there gray areas in trademark use, but this use is not one of them. Clearly the church is violating Best Buy's trademark rights. I don't think they are intending harm, and I think in cases of such non-commercial uses it might be nice if the trademark owner was polite and understanding rather than threatening. Nonetheless, the church really ought to cease and desist using Best Buy's trademark for its own purposes, even if it believes those purposes are admirable.
Yes, it's almost certainly dilution under 15 USC 1125(c) (Lanham Act sec. 43). However, under under 15 USC 1125(c)(4)(B), "noncommercial use of a mark" is not actionable. It's unlikely that the priest is engaging "in commerce", nor would any Federal court be willing to call charitable donations to a church "commerce" within the meaning of the commerce clause, since they would run up against all sorts of political backlash. So, as long as he doesn't
Must Defend Trademark (Score:3, Informative)
Trademark is not copyright. (Score:2)
It isn't that easy. They must also convince the court that the public might be misled into believing that it is getting Best Buy's product when it is not. Their only alternative is to claim dilution which would require that it be used to advertise an unrelated product or be used in a way that would "tarnish" it by creating negative ass
God makes Geeks look bad (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:3, Funny)
By the power of certification (Score:2)
I seem to recall a comic from back in the '90s whereby some geek had his hand on a broken computer and was saying outloud:
"By the power of certification I command thee..."
Re: (Score:2)
here you go.
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/6000/800/6858/6858.strip.zoom.gif [dilbert.com]
Similar case successfully defended (Score:2)
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2005-05-27-laugh-it-off-wins-case-against-sab [mg.co.za]
"T-shirt maker Laugh It Off has won its fight against South African Breweries (SAB) over its right to mock the Carling Black Label brand."
This was quite a widely publicized law suite at the time and set a legal precident.
In the US however you don't have legal precidents. *sigh*
-paul
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they'd have a case if (Score:2, Funny)
Attn lawyers (Score:2)
Hey lawyers do any of you even know what a trademark is anymore. Its a mark used in your trade.
YOUR TRADE.
Unless they are claiming he is using faith healing to fix computers (more effective then the geek squad yes) They have no business complaining. If I want to open up geek squad plumbing there is nothing they can do about it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I want to open up geek squad plumbing there is nothing they can do about it.
Not true. They can sue you, even if they have a strong belief that they will lose.
You can be sued for any reason, by anyone. And in many cases, he with the most money, wins.
Look at RIAA, SCO, ORACLE, various patent trolls, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark dilution is their theory.
They're hoping that God will back down in fear of their threat.
God probably will.
Thank God!
About time... (Score:2, Interesting)
FSM (Score:2)
They should have incorporated the FSM [venganza.org] into their god squad logo :)
God Squad has been around a long time. (Score:2)
Because of that, I'm guessing the Geek Squad won't have a slam dunk if they press charges.
(That and parody stuff.)
ianal (just like almost all of the rest of slashdot)
Let's not get carried away here (Score:2)
Best Buy's Geek Squad, a group of electronics troubleshooters.
Nevermind...
God Squad was first (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, not really. Look at the logo. It's clearly based on the Geek Squad logo.
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark is not copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even more clearly based on the mod squad logo [chezgrae.com], which predates both of them by decades.
I'm no fan of any of the parties, but it would be funny if the "infringing" logo turned out to be older (which occasionally happens).
--MarkusQ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)