Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me! "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

The Tabberone™ Archives These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement. When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.

Source: http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/?p=1149 May 8, 2008 - links have been removed

Putting trademark in the corner Catchphrases with no coherent secondary meaning and no meaningful trademark identity are one of the really galling misuses of trademarks these days. Nick Daly sends along this story:

Lionsgate Film Studio has sued 15 companies for allegedly selling their merchandise featuring its trademarked phrase “Nobody puts Baby in a corner” from the 1987 hit movie “Dirty Dancing.”. . . The suit, filed in Los Angeles last week, alleges that the use of the phrase by the companies wrongly sends the message to the consumers that the merchandise was authorized for sale by Lionsgate.

This is silly. Not every “good line” from a movie silk screened onto a trinket lures consumers into thinking that the merchandise has to do with the movie in any formal way. To the contrary, consumers recognize this as a mere cultural reference. But cleverness is not a basis for granting trademark rights. This is no more than trademark as cultural rent seeking, an old topic around here, and it’s despicable. “Good lines” used to be their own reward. The late Phil Rizzuto was known by millions for his “trademark” use of the phrase “Holy Cow” in calling baseball games. This “trademark” benefited “the Scooter” without recourse to the Lanham Act: It was something that projected his reputation, enhanced his career and the demand for his services, and gave joy and pleasure to his fans. Contrast “Three-peat,” a registered trademark of basketball coach Pat Riley, meant to describe a thrice-repeating professional sports championship. Beaucoup clever. But a trademark? For what? Some junk that his company sold around the time he registered the mark, solely for purposes of establishing bona fide trademark use? I’d love to see the survey that could establish any good or service consumers associate with this coinage. That survey will never be taken, because the kinds of companies shut down by lawsuits by the likes of Riley and Lionsgate typically can’t afford to litigate (a survey alone can easily cost six figures of money). Thus the abuse of the Lanham Act continues. Ironically, it’s unnecessary. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that NOBODY PUTS BABY IN THE CORNER isn’t making Lionsgate a dime today, because it is essentially worthless as anything but a lever over other peoples’ use. But you ask: Wait, why shouldn’t Lionsgate be rewarded for its clever phrase (I guess it was clever; I did not see the movie) or the “artistic” moment or recollection it evokes? But it has been! This line presumably made their movie better, and a better movie made them over a fifth of a billion dollars in box office receipts. And that’s what — and all that — a good catchphrase should be. You know: Its own reward. UPDATE: Brett Trout points out there isn’t even a registration for this phrase. Lots of other good stuff in his piece. Hat tip to Blawg Review.

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® is proudly powered by WordPress Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).