Monday, February 19, 2018

Legal Geek No. 126: Hotter Than Hot Sauce

Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, with permission from Garrett and Kyle, we cover the trademark Cease and Desist received by the WeekSauce podcast this week from the holders of the Tabasco brands, and how that process works. 
We've covered fun versions of Cease and Desist letters or demand communications in recent segments, but our Frogpants friends from AMoveTV received a serious type of letter in this form from McIlhenny Company, owners of the trademark portfolio for Tabasco.  Kyle graciously allowed me to take a deeper look at the details, and it should help clarify for content creators what to do when this happens.

McIlhenny has actively protected the Tabasco brands for nearly 100 years, and so the letter to AMoveTV strikes the typical firm but understanding tone of modern C&D letters.

The brand manager for McIlhenny starts by listing some of the unauthorized uses on iTunes and the internet of the WeekSauce podcast logos which they deem to be problematic, and then provides a summary of the various trademark registrations held by the company.  Several of these are also attached for review, and the letter goes on to explain that U.S. trademark law forces them to actively police and defend their marks to maintain the valuable rights against claims of dilution.  The letter concludes with the demand for AMoveTV to stop use of the marks deemed objectionable.  This is standard fare in this field, but it is well written and clear in this case.

Turning to the merits of McIlhenny's argument, most of the Tabasco trademark registrations cover the name itself Tabasco, the diamond shaped bottle label, and the diamond logo with the wording.  Those are easily distinguished because AMoveTV is not using the name Tabasco and/or because many of these logo trademarks cover only the famous pepper sauce rather than other goods and services.

But one particular registration stood out on my review, and that is one from 1996 which covers just the square and circular lines forming the diamond logo, absent any wording.  This was registered in many classes of goods and services, including apparel like T-shirts, food products, cocktail mixes, and restaurant services.  This is a very broad way to cover the core of the company's famous logo, and it's a genius way to reach potential infringements that may not copy the words or other parts of all the other trademarks.  And it's this very same registration that causes trouble for folks like Kyle and Garrett, even though podcasts are not explicitly within the scope of what is covered by McIlhenny's trademark.  The problem is that use in another context can blur over time if AMoveTV brought out T-shirts or other merchandise using the WeekSauce logo, and the mark must also be policed against dilution which can occur if Tabasco did not enforce their rights in these types of close call situations.

Sometimes acts that are truly an infringement can still be done if they fall under the protections of Fair Use, including things like parody.  That exception could be applicable here, but trademark litigation to try and prove that as a defense is costly and usually not worth the expense to smaller parties.  Fair Use is a serious gray area that's honestly never that predictable in court.  It's simply safer and easier to avoid infringement altogether, or take a license.  In this case, Kyle and Garrett are changing the show logo, and sometimes that's just what you have to do.  It doesn't feel great, but the big companies are forced into this by the U.S. rules on things like dilution, and the rest of us just have to deal with the consequences of the system.

The Bottom Line is, McIlhenny should be commended for finding such innovative ways to secure broad coverage of elements of their logo, but it leads to this downside.  When in the position Kyle and Garrett found themselves in, it is best to be calm, breathe a minute, and then take a close look at the claims of the company enforcing their brand or other IP before deciding what action to take.  The claims don't always have merit, after all, and that can open an opportunity for dialogue with the other side.  If you can't figure it out yourself, please never hesitate to have an attorney help guide you to the best solution to the problem, even if it's not what you originally want to do.

But for now, we can all rejoice that WeekSauce and our friends are hotter than hot sauce.  Boom.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Thursday, February 8, 2018

Legal Geek No. 125: Famous Sporting Events and Trademarks

Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we celebrate last week's great Super Bowl and the opening of another Olympic Games with a look at how trademarks are closely intertwined with these events and athletes.

Trademarks may not be the first thing that comes to mind when you think of world famous sporting events and spectacles like the Super Bowl and the Olympics.  However, the use and enforcement of trademarks has become a vital part of these events and how companies around the world can participate in the celebration.

For example, both the National Football League and the International Olympic Committee hold significant trademarks covering the names and logos associated with these sporting events.  Both organizations aggressively defend such intellectual property as well, as anything with a multi-colored linked ring design or marketing surrounding Super Bowl Sunday would quickly be shut down if not allowed by a license agreement from these rights holders.  By keeping such a tight lock on these names and logos, these organizations are able to maintain highly profitable revenue streams from licensing the rights to companies like McDonald's and others who want to advertise and be a significant part of these big events.

One interesting thing to look out for in the next two weeks is the new faces who become viral, or nicknames and slogans that grab the world's attention and become water cooler talk.  These athletes or teams can leverage that rise to fame for a longer period of time if they register for trademark protection and then defend and use those rights after the Olympics.  This is similar to what happens in some NFL athlete lives, such as the "Beast Mode" moniker that will far outlive our memories of running back Marshawn Lynch, who coined the popular phrase.

For any of these athletes who are still in college, navigating the acquisition of trademark rights and the NCAA compliance rulebook can be highly difficult.  However, there's no rule stopping athletes in college from locking down these trademarks and then fully leveraging them after NCAA eligibility is over.

While it's true that many of these "15 minutes of fame" elements of the Olympics will fade from public consciousness quickly, just like the Right Shark moment from a couple Super Bowl halftime shows ago, they do lead to trademark implications and interesting cases we look forward to covering here.

In another quick sports trademark story, the Cleveland Indians organization decided to stop using their Chief Wahoo logo on the field starting in 2019.  While trademarks can still be maintained on allegedly disparaging marks following the In re Tam decision on The Slants band, the Cleveland baseball team has chosen to relent from public pressure while other similar teams like the Washington Redskins football team does not.  However, to keep the valuable trademark rights from lapsing, Cleveland will continue to sell merchandise with Chief Wahoo, so the symbol is not going away anytime soon thanks to trademark rules and practices.

The Bottom Line is, trademarks and big sporting events fit together like a hand and a glove.  While pursuing athletic conquest and glory, many athletes and others happen upon fame that can give them financial success for life, thanks to trademarks and branding protections.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Friday, February 2, 2018

Legal Geek No. 124: The Town Crier Approach to C&D Demands

Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review what has become a trend in sending demand or cease and desist letters, a softer edge that is just as much marketing as it is legal.

A couple months back, the main show and this segment covered a story about Netflix attorneys sending a cease and desist letter to a pop up Stranger Things themed bar with a lot of humor and in jokes from the show mixed in, instead of the usual threats and legalese.  This resulted in positive press for Netflix and their attorneys, as evidenced by our own coverage of the event, while also resulting in the other party complying with the demand from Netflix.  This softer approach is becoming more prevalent, as evidenced by a Town Crier sent by Budweiser to another brewing company last month:

INSERT TOWN CRIER FROM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=hCvPtSxxVkU

Turns out, even Dilly Dilly can be made into something funny and enjoyable in this context.  As with the Stranger Things letter, this Town Crier demand went viral online and in news coverage, with positive press happening for Budweiser rather than the negative feedback the public often gives when brands are pushy about enforcing their rights.  Plus, the Minnesota brewing company agreed to comply with the demand and stop selling the Dilly Dilly Mosaic Double IPA after the initial run was sold.

Other examples recently of this trend include TGI Fridays sending a box of buttons and other flair to a Chicago bar with a letter asking that the bar's plans to hold an event mimicking the Friday's restaurant be limited to a one-time thing.  That certainly makes it easier for the bar's employees to look like Friday's servers for the event, and it struck a good balance between enforcing a trademark, which is required to keep those rights, and being reasonable about fan service or parody in this case. 

In another case, Dole responded to an Instagram meme from a New York branding agency using their company logo for a Halloween joke about receiving bags of fruit instead of candy, but not with a takedown notice.  Instead, Dole added to the meme by making some more small bags of fruit and asked that the other company refrain from future unauthorized use of the trademarks so that they didn't have to come take all their candy away.

This trend for demand letters is certainly a response to the negative feedback other companies have gotten on social media and in the news for facing down fans with formal legal threats.  This is a smart way to jam some positive marketing into legal responsibilities.  Considering that nobody really wants to add more costly litigation to their dockets, the softer approach has proven to be effective enough to protect most brands while avoiding legal escalation and bad press.  In other words, a win-win.

The Bottom Line is, the old adage of "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" appears to be working in this context.  In my own practice, I often recommend a softer edge from content creators and brand owners at the beginning, as it can't hurt to try being somewhat nice before escalating to full conflict.  You just might end up with more friends and business partners that way, too.  In a society divided by politics and a lot of other stresses, it should come as no surprise that this approach is more effective.  I look forward to covering more fun legal demand letters as the trend continues.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy


Thursday, January 18, 2018

Legal Geek No. 123: TWiT sues Twitter for Trademark Infringement

Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review the newest lawsuit hot off the presses this week as podcast network TWiT, also known as This Week in Tech, sues Twitter for trademark infringement and other alleged misdeeds.


This Week in Tech is a network of shows in video and audio format that began around 2005 when Leo Laporte founded the network.  Indeed, many of you know this well because Current Geek's own Tom Merritt was a host of multiple highly popular shows on that network from 2010 through 2013, including Tech News Today. 

TWiT grew rapidly after the network's formation, and Laporte protected this name with a trademark registration at the U.S. Trademark Office in 2007.  Around the same time, Laporte had Twitter founder Evan Williams on one of his shows, and that led to a frank discussion regarding the potential overlap and confusion between the names TWiT and Twitter.  However, verbal communications and written follow-up communications in 2007 and 2009 reveal that Laporte and Williams agreed that these companies could co-exist because the creation of audio and video entertainment content was distinct enough from the text-based microblogging of the Twitter platform.

This 2009 communication is a key to the lawsuit this week, as Williams indicated that news reports of Twitter moving into the production of original video content were inaccurate.  Thus, the two companies continued to peacefully co-exist until 2017, when Twitter did expand into original video production on the platform.  Laporte again tried to get Williams and Twitter to stop, but as the parties have not reached an agreement, TWiT sued the giant Twitter this week in California federal court.

Many of the claims against Twitter in the lawsuit pertain to alleged breach of contract or false statements.  Laporte argues that the verbal and written communications from a decade ago were an actual or implied contract between the parties to not expand into each other's tech space.  As to these claims, Laporte makes a good initial case in the Complaint, but it's unclear that he has shown any evidence, particularly in writing, of actual clear intent of Williams to refrain from all future expansion into the fields of TWiT.  Without that type of evidence, it may be difficult to prevail on these types of legal theories.

As to trademark infringement, Laporte argues that the two companies now overlap in goods and services, and the marks are sufficiently similar to cause consumer confusion.  Williams' admission statements regarding potential and actual confusion based on the marks when appearing on a show with Laporte in 2007 would seem to support this argument as well.  But as we've discussed before, trademark infringement and the likelihood of confusion test for it involves a high number of factors that courts must weigh before coming to a conclusion, and that could lead to varying final results.

Nevertheless, in my view, this is the stronger part of the case for TWiT, and it may be what brings the parties to the table to negotiate some sort of new co-existence.  In other words, Twitter will likely pay a bunch of money to make this issue go away, as it seems unlikely that Twitter will want to back down from the extensive plans to produce the original video content for their platform.

If that doesn't happen, we will see just how far Leo Laporte will go in challenging a bigger entity to try and guard his IP and his market territory.  We will certainly keep our eyes on it and provide further updates as the case progresses between these two companies and services many of us enjoy and use.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Thursday, January 11, 2018

Legal Geek No. 122: Mr. Smith takes on Washington for a Back Rub

Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we start the new year with a fun one, as we summarize what immediately became my favorite Complaint filed in federal court in 2017, a case entitled Lathan Smith vs. the United States, the Secret Service, and the President Trump.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp122

Lathan Smith is an individual living in the San Francisco bay area, and he filed a Complaint in December that has made the rounds in IP legal circles for its quirkiness. Mr. Smith is certainly not the first person to file a kooky Complaint against the government, but this one has some nuggets that are too rich not to share.

The supposed facts stated in the Complaint are as follows. Mr. Smith claims to have created a new automotive motor, crank, generator, and engine, as well as fire resistant sheet rock used in buildings and toilet paper that is allegedly used by the federal government and city offices. He also claims that the government is messing with his ability to get a job, his ability to use his phone to call relatives in North Carolina, and has arrested and tried to murder him on numerous occasions.

After stating those facts, Mr. Smith sets for the legal claims he is making, and they include attempted murder and patent infringement. Yes, he has mixed those two in the same Complaint. For the attempted murder, he argues that the government has stabbed a knife into his neck, has hit him in the face with a passing truck, and has taken his child away. For the patent infringement, he claims that the secret service had the patent pushed through and then realized the product would work through computer realization.

At this point, you may just want to write this Complaint off as a sad story from a troubled man, but then we close with the demand for relief. Mr. Smith asks for the following, and I quote:

"I want all my patent from the first one to the last. I want all the money made from them. I also want to be exempt from taxes on my employment and whatever I build through the patents for the rest of time. I also want the United States to stop using my patented ideas. For all the stress I want them to provide a full body massage the rest of my life daily."

So while Mr. Smith wants an injunction against patent infringement like most plaintiffs, he also wants to never pay taxes again, a la the Armageddon movie script, and a full body massage every day from the government. One would think someone who has escaped numerous murder attempts wouldn't let the government near his body anymore, but here we are.

So here's to you, Mr. Smith of San Francisco. Your prayer for relief is one we patent attorneys have never thought to ask for, but a daily massage sounds pretty good to pay us off for patent infringement.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Legal Geek No. 121: Comic Con Stands Alone

Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review the decision in California this week regarding San Diego Comic Con and the ability of the organizers to protect against competition using the trademarked name Comic-Con.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp121

San Diego Comic Convention is the organizer of the huge annual gathering of the nerds and stars known as Comic-Con, and they have acquired registered U.S. trademarks covering this name. When a Salt Lake City comic convention refused to stop using Comic-Con as part of its name, or pay a license fee for the privilege, San Diego Comic Con sued for trademark infringement. This week, a jury found that the trademark registration is valid, and that the Utah convention organizers infringed the Comic-Con trademark.

What this means is that an injunction will likely be obtained against the Utah convention, which will then have to change its name moving forward. Other conventions in Baltimore and elsewhere using the name may also be challenged and forced to abandon the name Comic-Con. Many are asking how can this be fair, when the term Comic-Con is so descriptive of the event covered by the trademark?

Trademarks are generally classified into four categories of distinctiveness depending on how related the mark is to the goods or services covered. These categories include generic, descriptive, suggestive, and arbitrary. Terms that are generic such as paper are not protectable by U.S. trademark registrations, and the same is true of marks that are merely descriptive. However, if a descriptive mark acquires secondary meaning indicating the source of the goods as a result of long time use and promotion in the marketplace, those types of marks can be registered.

According to the jury in California, that must be where Comic-Con fits. The jury rejected Salt Lake's defense that the term Comic-Con is generic. Despite this, a shortening of the phrase comic convention is precisely descriptive of what happens at these events, so the jury and the U.S. trademark office have both come to the conclusion that the San Diego organizers have done enough in their 50 years in the marketplace to make this name acquire so-called secondary meaning. While some may come to opposite conclusions, this is a fact-based analysis based on things like survey evidence of what consumers believe, and therefore is unlikely to be overturned on appeal.

This is just the reality of how U.S. law has drawn the lines between what is protectable and what is not, and it makes sense based on the desire to allow competitors to be able to fairly describe their products but not trade on the goodwill earned through long efforts and marketing of other entities.

The San Diego organizers do run the risk of losing the trademark rights if they do not adequately police the use by other conventions, so expect this enforcement effort to expand and continue. Should you boycott San Diego Comic-Con over this? I'd argue no because this doesn't stop other conventions from happening, it just means they have to use a different name like Comic Expo, or the like. I would posit that even the longer form Comic Convention is likely acceptable and not covered by the trademark here. The protection is narrowly tailored and can be easily worked around, and therefore should have no real long-term effect on nerds who attend all these conventions.

The Bottom Line is, you may not personally like that a term like Comic-Con is protected by trademark and monopolized by the San Diego convention, but nerd culture has survived similar circumstances before, like when the term superheroes was trademarked. Conventions with as much success as the Salt Lake one, as I hear anecdotally, can honestly build up their own alternative brand name and then enjoy the consumer goodwill from that name. So it's not the end of the world, but don't expect to be going to anything literally called a Comic-Con outside of San Diego anytime soon.

Thanks to CareyT and MajorSpoilers on Twitter for suggesting this hot topic.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy









Friday, December 1, 2017

Legal Geek No. 120: Conflicts and Bias at the Supreme Court

Welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we update you on an augmented reality game lawsuit we covered earlier, and then turn to rising issues of conflicts of interest at the Supreme Court and the need for better controls to avoid personal bias at the highest court of the land.

https://archive.org/details/LegalGeekEp120

A few months ago, Legal Geek covered the latest in a lawsuit pitting Milwaukee County in Wisconsin against augmented game makers like those who make Pokémon Go.  As you'll recall, Milwaukee County enacted an ordinance in February requiring augmented reality game developers to go through a rigorous approval process with several very expensive requirement to operate in Milwaukee's parks.  Candy Labs challenged this ordinance in federal court and won an injunction this summer against enforcement of the ordinance as potentially not being constitutional.

This case was slated to go to trial in a couple months, but a settlement agreement was reached this week.  Under the settlement, Milwaukee will not enforce the ordinance and will pay attorney's fees to Candy Labs for this lawsuit.  So rejoice Pokémon Go and other augmented reality game fans, as this legal victory should deter other localities from unfairly limiting use of public spaces to gamers like this.

Now to our main topic this week, conflicts of interest at the Supreme Court. 

To describe conflicts of interest simply, judges are to be conflicted out of a case when they have personal involvement, such as by owning company stock, or prior involvement as an advocate on one side of a case they would be adjudicating.  We don't want unfair bias in the court system, so when conflicts come up the judge is supposed to recuse themselves, AKA withdraw from the decision making.  All lawyers also do conflict checks regularly to avoid representing two companies or persons that would be opponents to one another in court, so it's not unique to judges, nor is it a new concept to these seasoned attorneys who become Supreme Court justices.

Earlier this month, Justice Kagan recused herself from an immigration case that's been in hearings and re-hearings at the court for over 18 months.  Despite participating in a first decision when the court had 8 justices and was deadlocked, and then participating in the oral arguments of the re-hearing this October, at no point in this process did Kagan or her staff identify the disqualifying conflict of interest she had from her prior job as a solicitor general.  If Kagan had recused herself in a timely fashion, this case would be long wrapped up, and there would be no risk of bias based on her significant involvement in the oral argument and part of the decision-making process.  But that did not happen here.

More troubling, this is the third straight year where this has happened on a Supreme Court case, with a late recusal by a Justice after significant participation in the case.  The other two cases involved stock ownership in a company with stakes on the line in a Supreme Court case.  How does this problem keep occurring, and why?

There are some formal standards and a Code of Conduct federal courts are supposed to follow, including automated software screening checks, but these were made by a conference of judges at all levels of the judiciary.  The Supreme Court believes that by constitutional mandate, they are one court and not subject to policies or rules being forced upon them by lower courts.  As a result, each justice handles these potential conflicts in their own independent way.  As we can see, that's not working perfectly.

It is vital for the fairness and transparency of the judiciary that the highest court in the land be free from unfair biases.  To accomplish that, the Supreme Court should institute at least some standard procedures to more quickly and accurately identify these issues for consideration before an oral argument is conducted.

The Bottom Line is, the public has faith in the courts because they are designed to be fair and impartial, but the Supreme Court has a long way to go to catch up to the rest of federal courts in avoiding conflicts and late recusals from cases.  In a country so divided in partisanship in the other branches of government, we have to hope the courts lead by example and fix problems like this.

----------------------------------

Do you have a question? Send it in!

Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy