Does anyone know how Mitchum Deodorant got its name? The brand attempts to project a somewhat macho identity, not entirely inconsistent with Robert Mitchum’s image in movies. However, it must be admitted that Mitchum was fairly well known for playing dangerous, unsympathetic characters as much as for any heroic roles.
So what’s the deal?
First hit on Google for “Robert Mitchum” deodorant.
Was that your way of saying the answer could have easily have been found using Google? Because what you quoted doesn’t answer the question.
So, no.
I think it does. It wasn’t officially endorsed by or had as a spokesman Robert Mitchum but it borrowed his name as an iconic figure of the sort it wanted its consumers to identify the product with.
The NYT article Nametag cites says much the same thing.
Why would they have to? It’s a last name that lots of people have.
It’s hard to draw what is called a bright line to distinguish cases, but one trademark can infringe another if the average consumer can reasonably be confused about a claim or about an endorsement. And though celebrity law has tightened considerably since 1957 when Mitchum was introduced, even then celebrities had some protection about firms trading on their name or image.
From the little bit of history given in the articles it seems that the connection was merely a name and an implication of the actor’s image. Probably it was legally safe. And Mitchum may not have wanted the trouble of a suit. Certainly any case would have depended on the individual details of the particular ads, which we seem to be able to access, so we can’t say anything about them.
Even so, a suit shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. It’s a possible response that doesn’t seem to be frivolous. If people 50 years later are still asking whether a connection exists, a successful case doesn’t seem outlandish to me.
Where? It never states that Mitchum Deodorant was named after Robert Mitchum. Do you mean the possible implication which was “Robert never endorsed the deodorant. It’s a wonder he never sued”? The answer seems to come from someone that was a “fan” of Robert Mitchum for 13 years and wouldn’t know anything about how Mitchum deodorant got its name.
Huh?:
A lawsuit’s outlandishness can rest on “people” wondering if there’s a connection many years after a mere idea was proposed? Plenty of people still think Baby Ruth was named after Babe Ruth.
There’s a technical trademark problem with this hypothetical trademark dispute.
As Mitchum’s last name, the mark doesn’t get much protection:
While this provision doesn’t sound the death knell to any legal claims Mitchum might have asserted, it would have made the case a bit tougher.
If Robert Mitchum were to have brought a case, it would most likely not have been a trademark case; it would have been a right of publicity/misappropriation of identity case.
It’s really hard to give answers in a situation like this in which there is no public record of a legal dispute. Perhaps Robert Mitchum himself did not believe that the deodorant was trading on his identity?
I suspect it would have been both (sort of). See, e.g., http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=docket&no=03a0137p (Lanham Act Section 43(a) and right of publicity) and possibly some state law unfair competition-type claims. In '57, right of publicity law was in its infancy. http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/rftb.html (1st case was in '53 and involved photos and full names); it’s unlikely he’d rely solely on that.
Agreed.
Which, if anything, suggests it was not named after him.
Says who? Certainly not the site you linked. Oh, it reads as though the site author assumes it was named after him, but it glaringly failed to answer the simple yes/no question as to whether it actually was.
In a pig’s eye. The only mention of him in that article is the denial that’s there any relation.
So the question in the OP remains unanswered.
We’re going to have to disagree about this.
Personally, I find that notion that the connection made between the actor and the name, marketing, and positioning of the antiperspirant - one that started as soon as the product appeared and continues to this day - is mere coincidence to be untenable. It just happened that Revlon picked that name and it’s just a whole steaming pile of fortuitousness that it conveys exactly that image.
Codswallop.
Actually, no one has argued that “it just happened that Revlon picked that name.” Revlon might have had all kinds of reasons to pick that name. However, there has been no evidence presented that anyone, including Robert Mitchum himself, thought it was chosen in order to create the impression that it had something to do with Robert Mitchum.
Okay, so you feel that way personally. But that has nothing to do with your belief that your link answered the question or that because it was the first hit using google, was easily found.
No where does your link claim that Revlon “borrowed his name as an iconic figure” and again, it was written by a fan!
When was the product launched? Mitchum (the actor) hasn’t exactly been a household name for quite some time. Unless it was launched in the 60s or 70s, I suspect a reference to Robert would be unlikely.
Reminds me of noted not-in-touch-with-reality idiot Spike Lee threatening to sue Spike TV, alleging that the average person would think he was affiliated with the channel. Moron, I can think of a couple of Spikes more well known than you, you fringer director of crappy movies- most people don’t know you, period, let alone will connect you with a channel that features monster trucks and rasslin- not to mention spike was a word long before it was anyones name.
I don’t think Robert Mitchum ever really stopped being a household name since his rise to stardom in the late 40s / early 50s. Someone above claims the product was introduced in 1957, which I don’t have any reason to doubt. That’s long enough after Robert Mitchum became established in leading roles that it becomes debatable. Until somebody can dig up info on why “The Mitchum Company” of Paris, TN chose to call themselves “The Mitchum Company”, or dig up evidence that they existed while Robert Mitchum was still relatively unknown, I don’t think we have a definitive answer. Mitchum was acquired by Revlon in 1970.
The product was launched in 1959.