What if a well-publicized figure, such as a sports player, chose to have a huge disfiguring nike symbol tattooed on his face? Nike didn’t pay for, or encourage the tattooing, yet people would think that it was paid for, and it could result in bad publicity for nike. Would nike have a legal recourse against this player?
IANAL, but my understanding is that a company has to protect its trademarks, or risk loosing them. My understanding comes from working for a small firm that had a trademark, didn’t go after infringers due to a lack of funds, and subsequently lost it.
That said, Harley Davidson had a great print ad a few years back. It was a picture of a HD logo tatooed on a very well muscled arm. The tag line was: “When was the last time you felt this strongly about ANYTHING.”
The example you gave is an interesting one, and I believe the NBA has specific rules that actually forbid you from doing that - something about blatant advertising on the body of the player itself, but I’m not sure where I read it.
On a related note, there was a mexican food chain in Northern California that had a promotion where if you got a tattoo of their corporate symbol (a chili pepper wearing sunglasses and holding two maracas as I recall) anywhere on your body (didn’t have to be visible), they would give you free lunch for a year anytime you went in and showed it. The company got into trouble, however, when some good natured help-the-homeless group volunteered to pay to have the tattoos put on willing homeless people, and the corporation said they wouldn’t honor it since it wasn’t the image they wanted to project, which of course, was discriminatory. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the name of the damn restaurant, but this story was 1-2 years ago. I’m sure a search of some on-line newspaper archives from that area would turn up the story.
Yarster, that was Casa Sanchez that offered free lunches for life for people with the “Jimmy the Cornman” tattoo. I believe the offer has been discontinued, but I’m not sure.
First, IANAL. That being said, it is probably a violation of copyright law for a tattoo artist doing a copyrighted graphic, since the artist is profiting off the tattoo. On the other hand, walk into any tattoo shop, and you’ll probably be able to find something very close to Mickey Mouse, Popeye, etc. A company could sue a tattoo artist for using a copyrighted graphic, but the question is whether it’s worth it. I don’t know whether the company could sue the person with the tattoo. There’s not really any commercial gain for the person, and it might be covered under the fair use clause. Of course, I might have no idea what I’m talking about.
If, however, the person involved in a celebrity of some sort, the company could have a better case for misuse of the graphic since the person is in the spotlight. Whether a company like Nike would want to be seen as sueing an individual to force them to remove or cover up a tattoo is another question. It’s not a simple matter of a person removing a graphic from a website.
Sports Illustrated, [Last] Week’s sign that the Apocalypse is Upon on us:
I saw a follow-up story somehere that the NBA would not have allowed it though. I can’t find it in SI, so it may have been in the Milwaukee Journal.
As to the OP, tricky one. One it’s on the person’s body, you’re talking about surgery to remove it. Something the Court does not like to approve. I’d like to hear from the intellectual property lawyers out there. (One note - I don’t think the OP is realistic. I can’t see Nike getting upset about their swoosh anywhere.)
I saw a guy at the gym recently with a big, black Nike swoop tattooed on his leg. All I could think was - man, he must regret that.
Who would want a corporate symbol permanently displayed on their body?
I have a Winnie the Pooh on my leg. I noticed looking around the tatoo parlor that many symbols were trademarked symbols (Mickey Mouse, Winnie, Taz) that has * something * different. My Winnie the Pooh has a blue shirt instead of the red one he is usually portrayed in, for example. I don’t know if changing such a small detail that leaves the image recognizable as a corporate character is enough to skirt the law, but I do remember having a design that I could not use because of trademark infringement. I probably could have found another artist to do it, but this particular parlor cited a trademark law and refused to do it.
So you can take that for what it’s worth. I do not have a cite, just the word of a tatoo artist. He could have been mistaken or working under the influence of an urban ledgend (is that the right word for it here?) regarding tatoo law.
[HIJACK] Did anyone see the Time Magazine from February 12th where they showed the T-Shirt made promoting Islamic Fundamentalist Bin Laden? It had Nike Swoops all around the collar!!Freaky.[/HIJACK]
oh actually, I don’t think it was that week’s Time Magazine. Nevermind.
One reason that a tattoo artist might be reluctant to do a copyrighted image is that many artists copyright their own designs (similar to the Reader having a strong policy on posting copyrighted material).
Is it possible he works for Nike?
I read the book about Nike’s history, and they have this whole cult-like culture going on over there. All the “serious” employees had the swoosh tattoo.
Not all companies would find it objectionable even if the trade dress were infringed.
I recall an interview with the CEO of Harley-Davidson right when they recapitalized, and he was crowing about the power of the brand. “How many other companies’ customers,” he asked, “tattoo the corporate logo on themselves?”
As a practical matter, big corps probably wouldn’t bother, though it would be interesting to see them try.
One way that would increase the likelihood would be to depict, say, Mickey Mouse in a compromising situation with Minnie. Ask Bobby London, Dan O’Neill et. al., whose “Air Pirate Funnies” and “Dan O’Neil’s Comics and Stories” underground comics were deliberate parodies of Micky, Donald, Goofy, and all smoking dope and having sex. Disney sued them big time and made it stick, so that now those back issues are serious collector’s items.
That said, it probably just wouldn’t pay them, aside from the possible big-corporation-picking-on-a-little-guy publicity, to bother about a single person.
My niece, for some inexplicable reason, chose to have a Kelloggs Tony the Tiger tattooed on her ankle.
And as far as doing it myself, I can’t imagine liking any company enough to wear their logo on my skin. Of course, YMMV.
Ok, here’s the deal.
NPR had an interview with the head of an advertising firm that was approaching NBA players about putting temporary corporate tatoos on their skin (click here to listen. I think the size mentioned was about 1 inch high by 3-4 long on their arms (big enough to be seen on a medium long shot, would vary based on the specific logo).
NBA corporate honchos whined about the no ads on uniform rules and claimed that this applied to skin as well. The exec mentioned he was actively pursuing players willing to become a test case, and a candy company was mentioned as a potential first client.
The talk then turned to real tatoos, and the exec claimed that was too far out for him. Although he did mention that Shaq has a superman “S” on his arm. Anyone hear DC comics complaining?