foraker Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Dirtbags R Us may be gunning for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 These people were not merely calling their children 'Sweet Pea' and putting it on a shirt," Barthet said. "They were making this clothing available for sale to the general public    Oh the outrage--calling their own children by a trademarked name. Why didn't someone get sued for singing Old McDonald had a Farm in the shower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 Isn't it fun living in a country with over 70% of the world's lawyers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Isn't it fun living in a country with over 70% of the world's lawyers? It is a sad waste of human beings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Isn't it fun living in a country with over 70% of the world's lawyers? It is a sad waste of human beings. Even sadder is people won't do "the right thing" without threat of lawsuit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Agreed. But didn't people do the right thing long before lawyers? Don't people in other countries do the right thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 In the old days, Mr. T would show up with an economy-size can of whoopass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 GiggleWiggles.com  that's such an awesome name for a website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Isn't it fun living in a country with over 70% of the world's lawyers? It is a sad waste of human beings. Even sadder is people won't do "the right thing" without threat of lawsuit  I don't think policy or legal theory pertaining to intellectual property is quite that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I have trademarked the word "spray". Please send me $5000 every time you post in this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 So what's the solution for when technology outpaces law/ethics? Slow down technology? Speed up law/ethics? Speed things up by hiring more, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I don't think policy or legal theory pertaining to intellectual property is quite that simple. It is pretty simple. There's $ to be made or protected. Lawyers are a gatekeeper to that $. The more money to be made or protected, the more lawyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 So what's the solution for when technology outpaces law/ethics? Slow down technology? Speed up law/ethics? Speed things up by hiring more, right? Â Have a kegger, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I like how the lawyer purports that the trademark laws are there to "protect consumers from getting confused." (paraphrased) Â Good to know that they are just doing the rest of us a favor. I would have been seriously fucked if I had bought the wrong Pea in a Pod baby product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
layton Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 just don't have polish bob get involved! he threatened to kill the asshole who tried to sue me over the "dirtbag" t-shirt, which i finally had to abandon. wish bob did follow through on that threat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 I don't think policy or legal theory pertaining to intellectual property is quite that simple. It is pretty simple. There's $ to be made or protected. Lawyers are a gatekeeper to that $. The more money to be made or protected, the more lawyers. Â I think you are somewhat right about that. It seems in this "new" frontier, those making the $ are increasingly getting the courts and the legislature on their side, under the guise of the 1st amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 just don't have polish bob get involved! he threatened to kill the asshole who tried to sue me over the "dirtbag" t-shirt, which i finally had to abandon. wish bob did follow through on that threat... Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distel32 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Layton, do you mean to tell me the "dirtbag" hackey sack people got all up ons because you had a climbing t-shirt on your website that said dirtbag!? Â that is fuckin lame ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Oh the outrage--calling their own children by a trademarked name. Why didn't someone get sued for singing Old McDonald had a Farm in the shower?  Well... (1) because no one is attempting to make money singing Old McDonald while in the shower, and (2) I believe Old McDonald is no longer copyrighted and is in the Public Domain.  As much as I hate sticking up for the lawyers, you just can't go out and produce/market/sell any damn thing you want, just because you're some "mom and pop" store running out of a garage. It's called basic research - if what you're selling has been trademarked, then you'd better not be too surprised when someone knocks on your door and serves you.  What if the shoe was on the other foot? What if the small time outfit was the one with the trademark and the big time corporation walked all over it? Most likely, the lawsuit wouldn't go far because the small time outfit wouldn't have enough money to finance an assault of the big time corporation. The corporation could just wait them out, spending money on lawyers until the small time outfit ran out of funds.  In that case, would it not be right for small time outfit to defend its trademark?  Trademark/copyright/patent law is kinda fubared right now, in my opinion. But it's still the law, like it or not.  -kurt® Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distel32 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Kurt, Â I think you oversimplify the problem....just like how you signed your post, if you tradmarked Kurt, and then someone else made "Kurt and hot carl are best friends" shirts, then you could take them to court, even if there was no relation, that shit is lame ass..... Â There has to be some law about reproducing a product by a registered tradmark company vs. someone doing something completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Kurt, I think you oversimplify the problem....just like how you signed your post, if you tradmarked Kurt, and then someone else made "Kurt and hot carl are best friends" shirts, then you could take them to court, even if there was no relation, that shit is lame ass.....  Yeah... I oversimplified it, but it really gets down to (1) what the trademark pertains to and (2) if there could be confusion about the trademarked item.  Regarding the second item, there couldn't be any confusion with your "Kurt and Hot Carl are best friends" shirt because obviously you're refering to AlpineK, and not me. And besides, my name is only trademarked for items containing my name and the term "Dirty Sanchez".  But seriously...  When somebody trademarks a word or phrase, they aren't laying claim to the word for every use - they have to specifically cite what products the word/phrase will be associated with. And the Trademark Office doesn't allow things like "every use known to man now and in the future." So with Layton's dirtbag example, the original dirtbag has trademarked the term with regards to clothing. Pretty broad claim in my book, but I'm no lawyer. So legally, anyone that produces clothing for profit - where there could be confusion as to who is profiting from the product - would be infringing on dirtbag's trademark. The whole confusion issue is where it gets sticky in court. It's pretty obvious if you're selling a software product named Excel that just happens to be a spreadsheet program, but you're not Microsoft. But not so obvious if you're both selling shirts with the term Dirtbag on it. It sucks, but no one ever said life was fair.  It's just like this recent suit involving Starbuck's...  http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?S...tionID=&S=1  Here, the gal didn't even use their name or logo!  I agree... there needs to be some way of overhauling all this to allow companies to protect their "investment" in their image/name/etc while still allowing for some common sense.  -kurt®© Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalius Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Interesting note relating to your article.... Â In Santiago, Chile there are several cafes called "Starlight" cafe. They use the same font as Starbucks, the same color green awnings, probably thinking that some Chileans will think it's probably just Starbucks. The copyright laws may not be as enforceable there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulB Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 In a similar vein, the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Committee has been putting the squeeze on businesses in BC which have any variation of the word "Olympic" in their name. Â http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/s...alSmallBusiness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knelson Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 Interesting note relating to your article.... In Santiago, Chile there are several cafes called "Starlight" cafe. They use the same font as Starbucks, the same color green awnings, probably thinking that some Chileans will think it's probably just Starbucks. The copyright laws may not be as enforceable there?  Yes and no. It all depends on how hungry the government is for foreign cash.  Chinese courts even sided with Starbucks in this one:  http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article336269.ece  However, these folks I believe were using the same exact logo.  Good thing I got my Rolex over there before all this counterfeiting started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mos_Chillin Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 cuz I am going to sue your ass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.