…well, “popular” is also a generous descriptor of Blue.
Labatt’s decision to not further pursue the matter:
“Our goal was simply to protect our brand. Given the serious nature of the underlying story, we decided it was important to request that an alternate photo be used. Once the Gazette explained their position, we promptly thanked them for their response, dropped the matter and we will not be following up further. We accept the Gazette’s position,” said the statement from Charlie Angelakos, Labatt’s vice president of corporate affairs.
Should actually be read as “Once the folks from Legal found out what we did, they told us to drop it. Something about a leg and standing on it…?”
About the only person who’d have any cause of action here at all would be, as was pointed out above, the photographer who took the picture.
Companies are (or should be) vigilant on using their trademarked names loosely, or they might lose the trademark. This has happened often, notably with aspirin, which was a trademarked name by Bayer. Bayer was not vigilant in protesting this and lost its trademark. A company can’t do anything about verbal abuse, but if that appeared in print as you quoted, most assuredly the author and publisher would be requested to change the quote by capitalizing the “k” and showing the trademark symbol.
Kleenex could send the author and/or publisher a letter asking them to change the reference. And that’s all. There’s no legal requirement for anyone to abide by Kleenex’s wishes.
The letter does not mean that the name can’t be legally used. What the letter does is demonstrate that the company tries to protect its trademark. If a trademark falls out of use, you lose your right to use the trademark exclusively. So Kleenex sends out the letters, not to get people to stop using the word kleenex to refer to any tissue, but to demonstrate that they haven’t abandoned the trademark.
Often though, magazines and newspapers and TV shows will voluntarily agree to these requests, because they make their money from selling advertising. They want to keep their advertisers, or potential future advertisers, happy.
Footnotes 168, 169, and 170 given as authority for that statement do not state that. Footnote 172 makes a similar statement, but says it expired in the USA in 1917, but gives no authority for stating it was part of the war reparations for the other countries. I did not find that in the Treaty of Versailles. The Wikipedia statement says it remains a trademark in certain countries “using different packaging and physical aspects,” whatever that may mean. Fn 173 states:
If the trademark is bandied around and used commonly, it is lost. You can be sure that the companies producing Vaseline, Kleenex, Frigidaire, etc. are vigilant in checking written material for the generic use of their trademarks.
Right, but people using those terms in a generic sense aren’t guilty of trademark violation. These companies are simply using those letters as later proof that they didn’t acquiese in allowing their trademarks to become generic terms.
If I tell you that I made a xerox copy of a document, Xerox can bitch all they want, but can’t stop me from using words how I please.
They can be vigilant all they want, but the fact that a name is trademarked doesn’t prevent people from using trademarked names in any way. The only thing a trademark does is prevent people from using someone else’s trademarked name in commerce.
And even then, a trademark is not a blanket prohibition. The Beatles trademarked Apple Music. Then a computer company came along that was also called Apple. They were allowed to use the Apple name for their computer company, because they were a computer company that had nothing to do with music.
Until iTunes happened many years later. There must have been some legal fuss over that. I wonder if they’re prevented from using the Apple name on anything to do with iTunes.
Assuming he didn’t take the picture himself, their best strategy would be to pay the legal costs of the photographer to sue for using his photo without permission.
When Labbat bitches and moans, they should thank their lucky stars they’re not Kool-Aid.
New game: Brands associated with crimes:
OJ Simpson/Bruno Maglie shoes.
ETA: Kool-Aid and suicide has now entered the language in general contexts–now that’s bad.
