Could two guys, let’s call one of them Bill Dunder and the other John Mifflin, get together and form a paper company called Dunder Mifflin Paper Company? They would certainly be accused of playing off of the now-famous TV sitcom., but would they be able to do it legally in the US if they wanted to. Can whoever owns the rights to “The Office” protect the name of a fictitious company since a real paper company has nothing do with a made up one for television?
In Australia Lion-Nathan, a mega-brewing conglomerate, introduced an unlicensed Duff beerat the height of Simpsons popularity. 20th Century Fox successfully got it withdrawn as a breach of their copyright.
I expect media and intellectual property lawyers are all across this just as they would be with any unlicensed product.
Yes, it’s possible for the name of a fictional company to earn trademark protection.
But the key to trademark rights is use in commerce. If the company name is used only within the context of a story, that’s not use in commerce. There would have to be some goods or services for which the name functioned as a source identifier.
Note that NBC sells The Office stuff with Dunder-Mifflin on them such as t-shirts. If there was an actual company with that name, that would cause brand confusion which NBC’s lawyers would be all over like ticks.
That something is someone’s actual real name is irrelavant in trademark law. If your parents named you Coca Cola, starting up a beverage business (or any business) with that name is going to be a problem.
One real life example was a guy from the Taylor vineyard family after they sold off the name (which was eventually acquired by Coca-Cola, btw). He couldn’t use his name anywhere on the label of his new (but the original) Bully Hill Vineyard wines or in any promotion.
You ever heard of Gold’s Gym? It’s called that because Joe Gold is the founder.
You ever heard of World Gym? It’s called that because Joe Gold, its founder, had sold Gold’s Gym three years earlier.
What if it’s a descriptor and not a name? We’ve all seen auto dealerships like Market Street Honda or Route 40 Plymouth naming their locations. What if I open an auto dealership in Cincinnati and name it Pete Rose Toyota, and when Pete Rose’s lawyers call to complain I say “Wait a minute, that’s not an endorsement, it’s on Pete Rose Way, I’m just describing the location.”
I got the idea after seeing Bobby Jones Ford in Augusta, located on Bobby Jones Expressway. Of course, he’s been dead for close to 50 years, so most people wouldn’t think he was actually endorsing the product.
This is a matter of personality law (known in the United States as right of publicity law), not trademark law.
I don’t think the dealership is going to get away with the “that’s just my location” argument. Pete Rose would have to show that the public will understand the name as a reference to him. If it’s him then that’s a misappropriation of his name or identity.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar successfully sued another ballplayer who had changed his name to Karim Abdul Jabbar. I’m not astonished that he sued; I’m astonished that he won. Never heard of anyone getting busted for their own personal name.
Actually, they settled out of court. And the litigation was over the use of the name for commercial purposes. (You can’t successfully sue somebody for simply having the same name as you unless they are using your name to make money).
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-04-30-9804300080-story,amp.html
So if my fictional partners had hired a lawyer to do a copyright search (or whatever it’s called) it would have shown that Dunder Mifflin Paper Company is protected and they would be SOL. What if instead they decided to go into the tire business and named their company Dunder Mifflin Tire Company. Same infringement problem? Does whoever owns the rights to Dunder Mifflin Paper Company automatically own the rights to Dunder Mifflin everything?
No. Trademark rights are limited by the scope of the goods or services for which they are used.
“Famous marks” get more than that.
I vaguely recall from some article in Time magazine,there was a family wine business in New York State in the 1980’s. The family sold the winery to a big company, along with the family name associated with the product. A few years later one of the family members tried to create a new wine business, and used a variant on the name (something like Smith Wines vs. Smith Family Vineyards). It went to court and the court essentially said they did not have an absolute right to their name, it followed trademark law like any other name.
This makes sense. You can’t open a restaurant called McDonald’s, even if that’s your name. You sure as heck can’t open one if it’s not your name… but you pay a hefty franchise fee if you really want to open one, and follow the rules of the company that “owns” the name. Sometimes, conflicts arise from being different industries. There are plenty of companies called McDonald’s this-or-that, but there are also corporate lawyers on the lookout for possible conflicts. The trademark laws (IIRC, IANAL) revolve around the possibility of confusion.“Midland Coke Mines” probably wouldn’t be confused as affiliated with soft drinks, but “Coke Jogging Apparel” might. Apple Records was a brand started by the Beatles, and one of the big names in the music industry. Apple Computers was a small startup in someone’s garage in California. Computers had nothing to do with music. When Apple (Computers) got big enough to be noticed, there was some serious legal wrangling about names and branding; the eventual fallout was that Apple Computers would not be involved in music. We all know how that turned out. Anyone here remember Apple Records, or heard anything about them recently?
I was in Bethlehem many years ago, and there’s a coffee shop the guide pointed out called “Stars and Bucks” with a circular green logo. How do they get away with it? Bethlehem is in Palestine. Israel does not want to get involved in trivia like enforcing name brands, they have bigger things to worry about; the Palestinian government also does not have pleasing American companies high on its agenda.
Indeed, the McDonald brothers sold their trademark rights to Ray Croc and when they started a new burger joint, they had to pick a different name.
Also, trademark rights are bound by geography and national borders.
Starbucks can get rights in Palestine only if it does business in Palestine and according to Palestinian law.
Um, maybe read the previous posts. Esp. the ones that mention a vineyard.
There are different ways that trademarks can be infringed. You could not infringe in one form (being in a different line of business) but infringe in other forms.
It is true that you could form an Apple Housepainting Company without concern of getting sued by Apple (Computers) or Apple (Music). You just have to check if there’s already an Apple painting company around.
But trademark dilution applies to names strongly associated in the public’s mind. So setting up a Kodak or Verizon Housepainting Company is going to be a problem. People really will think that’s a related company.
And of course there’s stuff inbetween. Will people tend to think a Chevrolet Housepainting Company is associated with GM? That’s when lawyers are happy to jump in and earn money.
Oops. I missed the part about the vineyard. reading too fast…
Yes, the point our guide made about Bethlehem was that Palestine was like the wild west wrt some less important items like trademark law. The Palestinian government has other more pressing considerations, and if some countries are not going to recognize it, how can it sign and enforce intellectual property treaties with them anyway?
For the vast majority of countries, trademark law and other intellectual property are recognized and enforced reciprocally in international treaties. This is simpler than having to hire agents in every jurisdiction to trademark your name or file patents on your inventions.
Back in the 90s, Macintosh computers has a system sound called “sosume”
This paragraph sure makes it look like the second guy was busted just for using his own name—“without permission.” Apparently the meaning of “commercial purposes” was extended to mean playing pro ball under his personal name. Not even in the same sport! I can’t shake the sense of bizarreness around this.
Last I heard, Allen Klein liquidated it circa 1975.
There’s a “Fawlty Towers” hotel in Cocoa Beach Florida - I don’t know whether they’ve ever been sued.
Like the Gold’s Gym case, the guy who started Famous Amos cookies sold the company and the name and when he started a new company The Uncle Noname’s Cookie Company
504 duplicate!