Oh, Ferrari. You make such lovely, fast cars. But, damn, are you in some serious denial right now. The Italian automaker is currently involved in a stupid tiff with a wealthy German fashion designer whose aesthetic sensibilities seem to be based on the result of mixing Red Bull and puréed Euro notes with the collected crotch sweat from a Berlin discotheque. Ferrari wants the designer, Philip Plein, to remove pictures of his own cars from his Instagram account, because they feel his feed “tarnishes the reputation of Ferrari’s brands.”
Monster Energy, maker of caffeinated liquid crank, has a long and legendary history of being roughly the most obnoxious trademark bully on the planet. It faces stiff competition in this arena of bad, of course, but it has always put up quite a fight to win that title. The company either sues or attempts to block trademarks for everything that could even possibly be barely linked to the term “monster” in any way. One such case was its opposition to a trademark registration for Monsta Pizza in the UK. Pizza is, of course, not a beverage, but that didn’t stop Monster Energy from trying to keep the pizza chain from its name. It lost that opposition, with the IPO pointing out that its citizens are not stupid enough to be confused between drinks and pizza.And that should have been the end of the story, except that this is Monster Energy we’re talking about, so of course it appealed its loss. Its grounds for appeal amounted to “Nuh-uh! The public really might be confused!” Thankfully, Monster Energy lost this appeal as well.
As Monster Energy doesn’t have trademarks for those classes, all it can really be suggesting is that there would be some confusion in the public that Monster Dip’s products were associated in some way with Monster Energy’s. And that suggestion sure sounds like Monster Energy suggesting that the public may not be able to tell its energy drink beverages from industrial paint. Which is amazing. I mean, I’ve had this exact thought for years, but getting Monster Energy to admit as much is deeply satisfying.
Dan Smith, from Newbury, created healthy drinks company Thirsty Beasts in 2018, and the US firm filed a legal challenge against him.It claimed customers would confuse both Mr Smith’s slogan – “Rehab the beast” – with its “Unleash the beast” line. The case, which was dismissed, cost Mr Smith more than £30,000 in legal fees. He said he and his wife had ploughed every penny they had into launching the business. After registering his first trademark in the UK in 2016, Mr Smith then filed the Thirsty Beasts logo. Billion-dollar company Monster Energy objected to his application, claiming Mr Smith’s slogan was too similar to its own.The UK Trademark Office ruled in favour of Thirsty Beasts, but Monster Energy appealed the decision.
I can’t see any mention of them securing the rights to use the Monty Python trademark for their commercial products. The previous calendars were based on themes that were in public domain, but Monty Python is both copyrighted and trademarked.
The money is one thing, but the injunction is what will really have an impact for other conventions throughout the country. Suddenly, SDCC has a legal win that includes forcing another comic convention in another state to not be able to accurately call itself anything other than a “comic convention” specifically, with all other variations on that term being verboten. That sound you hear right now is hundreds of organizers of comics festivals falling out of their chairs.
Using word searches to find infringement is a bad way to go about things. It is likely why Volkswagen filed three takedown requests for art of beetles. Not Beetles with four wheels and headlights. Beetles with six legs and hard, shiny carapaces. For the record, Volkswagen holds no rights to literal bugs.
It will be interesting to see how Judge Battaglia rules on the assertion that SLCC’s defense of itself warrants its paying SDCC’s attorney’s fees. What exactly was SLCC supposed to do, not try to defend itself in the best way possible? One also wonders if SDCC would be petitioning for attorney’s fees had the jury found that SLCC’s infringement was not willful, resulting in the paltry $20k award. Perhaps, perhaps not. What this sure looks like is the SDCC realizing that this “win” came at the cost of a hilariously large amount of money and it is attempting to mitigate that loss.SDCC also petitioned the court to bar SLCC from using its trademarks. That sort of thing would be par for the course except for two things. First, again, this trademark is ridiculous. It’s purely descriptive. Second, hammering home that fact, SDCC doesn’t want SLCC to even be able to properly describe the type of event it is.
You may recall that the middle of last summer saw us reporting on a somewhat odd trademark dispute between two breweries, Shipyard Brewing Co. and Logboat Brewing Company. Chiefly at issue was the fact that both breweries used images of schooners on their respective labels, except that the images used were laughably different. Also at issue was that Logboat’s “Shiphead” beer used the word “head”, which Shipyard says it uses in a variety of other beers, such as Pumpkinhead, Melonhead and other variations. Shipyard, notably, does not have a beer called “Shiphead”, making this all the more eyebrow-raising.Well, after we and others reported on this silly lawsuit, it seems that many within the craft beer fanship and community, a passionate group to be sure, felt a desire to let Shipyard Brewing know what they thought of this behavior. This is a common result when passionate fanbases get wind of bad actions taken within an industry. Despite that, Shipyard had apparently decided that all of this backlash was the fault of Logboat Brewing, and added a defamation charge to its lawsuit.
A few months ago, we alerted our readers that a trademark dispute between the San Diego Comic-Con and a company producing a Salt Lake City Comic Con, originally filed in 2014, was still going on. In fact, the district court hearing the case just recently ruled on several motions from both parties, including motions for judicial notice (essentially having the court affirm basic facts about the case), motions to exclude expert testimony, and motions for summary judgement. On the face of it, the news is mostly bad for the Salt Lake City convention, with nearly every ruling coming down against it. However, digging into the ruling itself, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.