They've taking trademarking too far.

[YogSothoth]

@BigT

It wouldn’t bother me so much if Mickey Mouse were a trademark. But it’s still under copyright.

And, really, it isn’t that I really care about to use Mickey in public domain works. But it has delayed a lot of other stuff from becoming public domain, as no one can play favorites.

Just to see if I got it right, in 20 years (or whenever that extension is up) anybody would have been able to use Mickey for any purpose? That sounds wrong, both in the apparent violation in trademark and necessity. As in, if they have it trademarked already, what’s the point of the copyright?

[mhendo]

@YogSosoth

That sounds wrong, both in the apparent violation in trademark and necessity. As in, if they have it trademarked already, what’s the point of the copyright?

Huh?

Why does it sound wrong? I don’t understand what you’re arguing here.

[The_Hamster_King]

@YogSosoth

As in, if they have it trademarked already, what’s the point of the copyright?

Trademark is intended to prevent confusion in the marketplace, not protect intellectual property. So if all Disney had was a trademark, someone could conceivably still use Mickey Mouse without permission so long as it clearly wasn’t confusing to consumers. (Now MM and Disney are such well-known and well-established brands that’s very unlikely, but if you’re a Disney lawyer, are you going to take that chance?)

[Isamu]

@YogSosoth

Just to see if I got it right, in 20 years (or whenever that extension is up) anybody would have been able to use Mickey for any purpose? That sounds wrong, both in the apparent violation in trademark and necessity. As in, if they have it trademarked already, what’s the point of the copyright?

That’s not really correct. Mickey is trademarked and trademarks (can) last forever.

So unless you have a license from Disney, you’ll probably never be able to sell your goods/services under a Mickey Mouse trademark without risking a Disney shark-attorney attack.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Larry_Mudd

There’s a certain irony in how wide of the mark Coca Cola has drifted since 1886. Coca Cola: No coca, no cola.

That’s not quite true. According to the Wikipedia article you linked to, decocainized coca leaf is still used as a flavoring agent in the manufacture of Coca-Cola.

People often confuse “coca” and “cocoa”, not surprisingly often when talking about Coca-Cola. I think it was in the movie “Marley and Me” where a journalist says he’s going to do a story on the illicit drug trade and follow the cocoa leaf from plantation to the streets of Miami. I couldn’t help wondering what he would think when he eventually ends up in a Starbucks staring into a cup of hot chocolate!

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Zyada

Then there is Monster Cable, which has, per Wikipedia, sued the following for trademark infringement:

[ul]
[li]Snow Monsters (a kid’s skiing group)[/li][li]MonsterVintage, small used clothing store[/li][li]Monsters, Inc., an animated feature film[/li][li]Monster Garage, a television series[/li][li]Monsters of the Midway, a nickname of the Chicago Bears football team[/li][li]Fenway Park’s Monster seats[/li][li]Monster.com employment website[/li][li]Monster Mini Golf[/li][li]Monster Balls Paintballs manufactured by JT Sports[/li][li]Monster Transmission[/li][/ul]

I am going to pass on the substance of this post, other than to aver that DMark has given a pretty good summary of the matter, especially in noting that the trademark monopoly typically only operates within a certain field of products.

However, Monster Cable has never sued the Chicago Bears. Wikipedia, while better than it once was, should never be mistaken for a reliable source. Dopers have a lot of misplaced credence in that website, and this is a good opportunity to remember its significant limitations.

[running_coach]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

I am going to pass on the substance of this post, other than to aver that DMark has given a pretty good summary of the matter, especially in noting that the trademark monopoly typically only operates within a certain field of products.

However, Monster Cable has never sued the Chicago Bears. Wikipedia, while better than it once was, should never be mistaken for a reliable source. Dopers have a lot of misplaced credence in that website, and this is a good opportunity to remember its significant limitations.

According to this article, they have.

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and court records, Monster Cable has gone after other notable monsters:

– Walt Disney Co., which distributed Pixar Animation Studios’ hit film "Monsters, Inc.‘’

– Bally Gaming International Inc. for its Monster Slots.

– Hansen Beverage Co. for a Monster Energy drink.

– The Chicago Bears, whose nickname is "Monsters of the Midway.‘’

[Isamu]

From the Wall Street Journal

The Scariest Monster of All Sues for Trademark Infringement - WSJ

“All in all, Monster Cable says it has fought about 190 monster battles at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and filed around 30 monster lawsuits in federal courts.”

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@runner pat

According to this article, they have.

Monster Cable has a webpage where it asserts that it “never sued the Chicago Bears.” Now, this is a ballsy statement to put on your corporate webpage if it isn’t true.

Now, it is not the case that there has been no interaction between Monster Cable and the Chicago Bears. In Proceeding No. 76331133 before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (an Article I tribunal), Monster Cable sought and received a sixty-day extension of time during which to challenge the Bears’ mark in “Monsters of the Midway.” Monster Cable did not further prosecute the matter (the docket and the filings can be viewed through USPTO TTABVUE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System). At no point did Monster Cable request that the USPTO cancel the Bears’ trademark, thus belying the claim that the two were engaged in adversarial proceedings of any sort.

It’s easy to see how this ex parte motion to toll the running of the trademark opposition deadline might be construed as a lawsuit among amateurs. However, and unlike Wikipedia, the SDMB has aspirations beyond dilettantism.

[zamboniracer]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

At no point did Monster Cable request that the USPTO cancel the Bears’ trademark, thus belying the claim that the two were engaged in adversarial proceedings of any sort.

It’s easy to see how this ex parte motion to toll the running of the trademark opposition deadline might be construed as a lawsuit among amateurs. However, and unlike Wikipedia, the SDMB has aspirations beyond dilettantism.

Saying Monster Cable “at no point request” that the Chicago Bears’ trademark be canceled seems to be overstating the case to me. It appears that the cable company did take the initial steps to contest the Bears’ trademark but abandoned the effort. The fact that a case exists within the system belies the claim that Monster Cable never took any action against the Bears and NFL Properties.

Has Monster Cable ever complained about the Muppets’ Cookie Monster, the Loch Ness Monster or the Lake Erie Monsters minor league hockey team?

[commasense]

@YogSosoth

Just to see if I got it right, in 20 years (or whenever that extension is up) anybody would have been able to use Mickey for any purpose? That sounds wrong, both in the apparent violation in trademark and necessity. As in, if they have it trademarked already, what’s the point of the copyright?

If/when the copyright on any specific Disney work expires, it means that anyone will be able to make copies of that work, not use any image of Mickey for any purpose.

So, for instance, someday you may be able legally to produce and sell your own DVDs of Steamboat Willie (1928), the first sound short starring Mickey Mouse. You could incorporate it into a movie you were making, without permission from or payment to Disney. But its entry into PD wouldn’t give you the right to copy images of MM from later works still in copyright.

In that respect, Steamboat Willie would be no different from any other Public Domain work, from the Bible and Shakespeare to Frank Capra’s Meet John Doe (1941). The latter is one of many films now in PD, mostly because their copyrights were not renewed back when that was a requirement. And notice how many different versionsof it are available.

[E-Sabbath]

Lucasfilm was pretty bad once.

@wiki

The company was the subject of an urban myth stating that it tried to trademark the term “Nazi”. This was based on a supplement for the Indiana Jones RPG in which some figures were marked with “NaziTM”. This notation was in compliance with the list of trademarked character names supplied by Lucasfilm’s legal department[16]. Later references to the error would forget its origin and slowly morph into stories of TSR’s trying to register such a trademark, possibly aided by TSR’s own reputation late in its existence as a “trademark Nazi” company.

Yep, they claimed they trademarked Nazi.

[gigi]

@Zyada

If companies were as reasonable as that, I would have no problem; however:

Vermonster was a well-established local beer in Vermont before Monster enegy drink existed; furthermore, there is no way you could confuse the two logos.

And the Ben & Jerry’s Vermonster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermonster

[BobLibDem]

If you want to see just how fast lawyers can move, just start up a company, any old company, with “Olympic” in the name.

[FallenAngel]

@mhendo

DMark, you might be right about how the system is supposed to work, but it gets problematic when a company with deep pockets decides to go after anyone who uses the name at all. The Monster cable company is notorious for suing anyone who uses the term “monster” in their product name, no matter how far removed their product is from audio-visual cables. Even if the objects of these suits end up winning, it costs them money and hassle and stress to fight these claims. One recent example was when they went after a company called Monster MiniGolf.

There was an instance here in Arizona several years ago of a mom & pop cafe the owners had named, “Margaritaville.” It had been in business for a few years and had a pretty steady clientele.

Some of Jimmy Buffett’s people got wind of it and sent a cease and desist order, since JB owns the trademark on the name for his own restaurants and other endeavors.

There was a pretty cool upside, though. Changing all their signage and materials would have cost more than the owners could afford, so Buffett fronted all the costs and even did some kind of promo for them. He said that while he had to protect his trademarks and copyrights, he didn’t have to be a jerk about it and hurt someone else who hadn’t meant any harm.

[Patty_O_Furniture]

Google maps turns up quite a few places named Margaritaville. Jimmy’s lawyers must be busier than a two-peckered billy goat

I hope the new sign reads:
New Restaurant Name
(Formerly Margaritaville)

[DMark]

@FallenAngel

There was an instance here in Arizona several years ago of a mom & pop cafe the owners had named, “Margaritaville.” It had been in business for a few years and had a pretty steady clientele.

Some of Jimmy Buffett’s people got wind of it and sent a cease and desist order, since JB owns the trademark on the name for his own restaurants and other endeavors.

There was a pretty cool upside, though. Changing all their signage and materials would have cost more than the owners could afford, so Buffett fronted all the costs and even did some kind of promo for them. He said that while he had to protect his trademarks and copyrights, he didn’t have to be a jerk about it and hurt someone else who hadn’t meant any harm.

This is actually a perfect example.

1. Business up and running, but still - the name most likely DID come from Buffet’s song.
2. The mom and pop owners probably liked the song and meant no harm.
3. My guess is the lawyers didn’t just “find it” - from personal experience, most of those places using a trademarked name are found by local competitors who blow the whistle on the neighboring business! You would be amazed at the number of letters and phone calls that come in from people who have an axe to grind.
4. Once a company knows of a business using their name, they HAVE TO send a cease and desist letter. Not that they particularly care about that small business, but if it can be proven in court that you were aware of someone infringing on your trademark, and you did nothing about it, you are allowing that trademark to lapse. Thus, in this case, if for instance Denny’s Restaurant Corp. could prove that Buffet knew about many restaurants with that name and did nothing it, they too could open up a chain of Margaritaville restaurants!
5. Buffet was a class act - by going there and giving an implicit OK (without charging them a licensing fee) he can now say he is aware of that restaurant, and made an exception in this case. He still keeps his trademark, but did a nice thing - trust me, very few large businesses would have gone that extra mile.

Most large companies really hate coming down hard on simple mom and pop businesses who have stolen their name - usually as “fans” - but again, if they don’t try to stop them, it leaves the floodgates open and a case could be made that the trademark is now up for grabs.

[Rack-a-Bones]

Didn’t Disney sue some guy for having the Cinderella castle tattooed on his back?

[Patty_O_Furniture]

That’s an amusing example of an ambiguous pronoun

If true, then this guy could have been in a world of hurt.

George Reiger considers himself Disney’s number one fan and to prove it, he has covered most of his body with over 1,900 Disney tattoos.

I see that he (eventually) got Disney’s permission, but he did have 80 tattoos before he did that. And since Disney agreed (with conditions), doesn’t that weaken their stranglehold on all of those trademarks?

For some reason, the guy is on his sixth wife.

[Cerowyn]

@Patty_O_Furniture

I see that he (eventually) got Disney’s permission, but he did have 80 tattoos before he did that. And since Disney agreed (with conditions), doesn’t that weaken their stranglehold on all of those trademarks?

Trademarks can be licensed, so they could have signed a license agreement with the be-tattooed guy to let him use them. He could even add a tattoo that said something to the effect of “used under license.”