But it at least accurate. And not entirely off subject. The length of the work and the absence of lyrics could be important if any legal action took place; words can be a much clearer statement of association to a product.
However, not being at all familiar with the United ad (assume it only ran in the USA?) I checked on YouTube.
United created a number of ads using different parts of RiB. And some of the arrangements were distinctive, so I assume they commissioned those performances and hold copyright.
But as Chronos pointed out, if identifiable and can be shown to have a strong association with a particular product, then it might still carry in a trademark dispute.
They play it in some moving walkway hallway filled with colorful lights at ORD. I don’t recall seeing a TV ad for any airline recently so can’t comment on those.
Still? I remember noticing that at about the time United was using it in their commercials, but I haven’t been through that terminal at O’Hare in ages.
Probably fine, even if United does claim the song as a trademark. Generally speaking, that the two products or services are completely different is sufficient that no confusion will exist. You could have Snickeroff brand toilet paper even if there’s already a Snickeroff brand of magnifying glasses.
For marks that are “famous” and are inextricably linked with a product in the public mind, though, you can’t use the mark even on vastly different products. That would be blurring the assumed quality or value of the famous product with another. Hence, no Microsoft coffee or Coca-Cola vacuum cleaners. I don’t think the RiB-United connection is that famous (though a court could disagree).
I think it’s impact on AA will be negligible at best. For one, I don’t think people really care that much about “jingles” and honestly I don’t consider this piece to be fresh or even very good in a condensed form. I would have been hard pressed to remember what it is, it’s not really memorable even as much as the simplistic NBC three-tone. I don’t think most companies would be scrambling for it, and if they did, they’d be viewed as posers I think.
What do you mean, what if the license doesn’t say? How can the license agreement not say how much money (or other compensation) you’re asking for the license?
“I know. Let’s use a song that’s fully connected in the public mind with one of our competitors!”
It won’t be used for the same reason why Coke never considered using a Pepsi jingle. People will hear it and think of United Airline, and any ad agency that suggested it would suddenly have one fewer client.
What is the licence doesn’t say if you can trademark it.
I guess the problem I’m having with this is how a second party can obtain intellectual property rights to another party’s IP without their explicit permission.
Why would the license say if you can trademark it? That’s not the sort of thing licenses cover.
What Acsenray was saying was that, if you have some reason to think that your product will be of increased value to a customer, or that their use would decrease its value to other customers, then you take that into account when deciding what price to charge them. And if you fail to anticipate that and so charge them a higher price, well, tough on you.