Isn't "Brand Confusion" getting out of hand?

[Alexander Kirby]

So I just read a recent article about the beer called Strikes Bock by Empire (a brewery apparently named after the Empire State Building). Now while this is quite clearly a pun (and I've got to admit, as beer puns go, it's worth a good 9/10) it was a given that Lucasfilm would deny the trademarking of this name under the good old "Brand Confusion" argument.

HOWEVER, I honestly think this one's stretching it a bit. I simply can't take these lawsuits seriously when there's no feasible way that a human being could become confused between the products in question: As much as I would love to see someone attempt to shove a bottle of beer into a DVD player, I don't actually think anyone's quite that stupid.

Another example that I think was taken too far was when Apple argued one of Samsung's phones looked too similar to the iPhone. Now I could understand this being a problem if phones were sold loose on supermarket shelves like actual apples (you know, the fruity kind), but I seriously doubt that anybody would spend 500 quid on something only looking at the pictures, without reading any of the words on the box or website. The biggest threat similar looking phones present is that of a mildly awkward silence following the words "Is that the new iPhone?" and "No."

The only people that benefit from this are the lawyers. Everyone can only suffer from the loss of such a pun; for when you start mistaking your beer for a movie, it was time to stop anyway.

 

[Sylph_14]

Eeeeeeh I can sort of see where it's coming from... I mean, isn't Lucasfilm owned by Disney now? Since they have to keep their squeaky-clean family-friendly image up, I can see how they wouldn't want to risk people mistakenly thinking some alcohol product is 'official' or 'endorsed' by the company. It's not a matter of mistaking a beer for a DVD, it's that not denying an association like that basically implies some approval.

Kind of the opposite of how HBO does have some official Game of Thrones beer out there.

Can't comment much on the Apple case, but I do hear they have a bit of a patent-trolling habit.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'll be honest with you, I treasure brand confusion. Fuck brands.

 

[Something Amyss]

Becoming?

Also, this shouldn't be brand confusion.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Yeah, the brand confusion of various properties has been out of hand for quite a while. There is one rather terrible problem though:

Since this has been an issue for some time, crafty (read: morally bankrupt) lawyers have argued that copyright law can be construed to say that not actively defending all possible infractions on the property is evidence of abandonment of that property. Meaning, that if Disney/Lucas Film do not actively massacre everyone even remotely infringing on their property (legally speaking) that property can be considered public domain.

It is important to note that there is no statuary law here, but some legal precedent can be construed this way. This is why we need real copyright reform now. However, with the way that congress is (not) functioning at the present time, I doubt that we will see anything but an escalation of this anarco-capitalism nonsense.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

It's really close on the beer one. There's an image that looks like the Star Wars opening crawl advertising the beer that Empire[footnote]the brewery, not the guys with an asthmatic cyborg leader[/footnote] might have made circling the internet right now. (I can't find the true source of the thing.)They had a good parody with their own name and a pop culture icon. It is damn meaningless to fight a micro-brewer that might make an extra couple thousand just because one of their beer names sound Star Wars-ish, but that's how mega-corps operate, all threats must be eliminated. Satan Lucasfilm has a case here, and I can only hope Empire [footnote]the beer guys again, not Palatine's "sharpshooting" clowns in white (You're not getting these two brands confused, are you?)[/footnote] is only forced to put a disclaimer at the bottom of menu's and bottles saying they aren't affiliated with Star Wars/Lucasfilm, if they lose the case. Maybe Lucasfilm should just settle out of court with them that way. It might even get more people to go see the (possible train wreck) films that are about to come out.

Lot's of parody products and similar names exist out there. Usually not even remotely in the same market, such as the beer case. But the Age of Patent trolls is here, fueled by the information technology that lets them find victims and send legalese threats at the speed of light. Apple was being a petty brat with the Samsung case. King Games goes after anything interactive with the words "Candy" "Crush" or "Saga" in them, including a small dev that made his game years before King started using those words. Games Workshop claims copyright to the "Space Marine" name, despite a book used the term first in 1948 and the phrase was in common use before GW even formed. Häagen-Dazs made up their name to sound foreign and they sued Frusen Glädjé ("Frozen Joy" in Swedish) just because they both do ice cream. There's that schmuck that claimed a trademark on the word "Edge." EA kicked him so hard in court all his trademarks were revoked. This list goes on for infinity.

 

[Thaluikhain]

IIRC, the Apple/Samsung thing was interesting. Apple was able to successfully prove that Samsung's product was very much the same as theirs, only much cheaper. Glock did much the same to Smith and Wesson over the Sigma pistol that was a few hundred dollars cheaper than a Glock.

Now, sure, more complicated than that, but the company whose IP is being infringed on is in a tricky situation there.

 

[Ark of the Covetor]

IIRC, the Apple/Samsung thing was interesting. Apple was able to successfully prove that Samsung's product was very much the same as theirs, only much cheaper. Glock did much the same to Smith and Wesson over the Sigma pistol that was a few hundred dollars cheaper than a Glock.

Now, sure, more complicated than that, but the company whose IP is being infringed on is in a tricky situation there.

No, Apple was able to successfully convince a court, considering how bizarre and downright counter-intuitive copyright law is using words like "prove" imbues the decisions of these laughable institutions where many judges are well-known corporate shills for hire with far too much weight IMO.

 

[Vigormortis]

I'll be honest with you, I treasure brand confusion. Fuck brands.

Then you would love it in China. I'm not entirely convinced there's even a translation for 'copyright' or 'trademark'.

 

[Queen Michael]

Häagen-Dazs made up their name to sound foreign and they sued Frusen Glädjé ("Frozen Joy" in Swedish) just because they both do ice cream.

That should actually be spelled "Frusen Glädje," but I get that they needed the accent to make sure people didn't mess up the pronunciation.

 

[newfoundsky]

Last I heard, there was an issue with Monster Energy drinks and Monster (the website thingy) and the decision was that since the two were not in any way in competition with each other, there could not possibly be any brand confusion. So unless Disney is about to open up some grog in those theme parks of theirs and start selling Episode 6 packs, I doubt this will go very far.

They also should start marketing condiments. Hans 57 anyone?

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, Apple was able to successfully convince a court, considering how bizarre and downright counter-intuitive copyright law is using words like "prove" imbues the decisions of these laughable institutions where many judges are well-known corporate shills for hire with far too much weight IMO.

Even so, a high profile result like that is doing a great job of advertising their competition.

 

[viranimus]

Forest for the trees.

Brand confusion is simply a biproduct of capitalistic culture that applauds brand identification. Remove the marketing, you remove the potential for loss on investment caused by confusion, and in the process remove any benefit to be had from potential litigation.

 

[Redflash]

I'll be honest with you, I treasure brand confusion. Fuck brands.

Then you would love it in China. I'm not entirely convinced there's even a translation for 'copyright' or 'trademark'.

This exactly! Intellectual property just isn't a concept at all in China, and there's pretty much bugger all western corporations can do brand-enforcement wise. Probably why they're so backed up and feel the need to spunk lawsuits and cease and desists at each other.

OT: I do agree the example you've given is going too far... and I shudder to imagine quite how many more scenarios like this we're going to see now that the most notoriously copyright-jealous entity on earth owns Star Wars.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'll be honest with you, I treasure brand confusion. Fuck brands.

Then you would love it in China. I'm not entirely convinced there's even a translation for 'copyright' or 'trademark'.

This exactly! Intellectual property just isn't a concept at all in China, and there's pretty much bugger all western corporations can do brand-enforcement wise.

Problem is, though, the people making rules on intellectual property have a definite dog in the fight. I can't wholly condemn other people for not wanting to play.

 

[Jamash]

Last I heard, there was an issue with Monster Energy drinks and Monster (the website thingy) and the decision was that since the two were not in any way in competition with each other, there could not possibly be any brand confusion.

I think there's a similar gentleman's agreement between Rockstar Energy Drink and Rockstar Gamers in which they've both agreed to live and let live as long as neither of them branch out into each other's markets and cause brand confusion, so Rockstar Energy Drink can't make video games (and probably can't sponsor E-Sports tournaments), while Rockstar Games can't sell beverages or become a sponsor in Rockstar Energy Drink's field, such as motor-sports (like how Xbox sponsors a V8 Supercar), and all the while, they can both refer to themselves as Rockstar for short in their respective fields.

 

[Vigormortis]

This exactly! Intellectual property just isn't a concept at all in China, and there's pretty much bugger all western corporations can do brand-enforcement wise. Probably why they're so backed up and feel the need to spunk lawsuits and cease and desists at each other.

Oh, I can assure you that they have a very well defined concept of intellectual property. After all, the country has a multi-billion dollar industry built entirely around copying intellectual properties.

There's enough knock-offs of established video game brands.

Spoiler: Even Team Fortress 2

It's called Final Combat, and....well....it's trailer speaks for itself:

Not only did they rip off the game-play, art style, characters, themes, and presentation of the game, they even copied the "Meet the Team!" videos.


This is how blatant the knock-off industry is over there. The knock-offs, many of them anyway, have high production values. Companies spend millions on copying a product and producing a very high quality copy. Any company affected by the knock-offs have very few, if any, options in response. Even China's growing automobile industry is guilty of it.