'Call of Duty' wins First Amendment victory over use of Humvees

Post by MaxBarraclough » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #12

tinkertamper wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't know what I'm talking about, but I think one of the core responsibilities of a trademark owner is that you establish a history of defending it. I heard once that if you don't do that you risk losing control of your rights to that property. Any smarty pants on here able to confirm/set me straight?

Yep, so this serve the companies interest because they're trying to defend their trademark; even if they failed. I doubt Humvee is in danger of becoming a generic term (Jeep is more likely; I cannot tell you much my it annoyed me my ex called her Suzuki 4x4 a "Jeep" .. it's not a Jeep! It's a 4x4 or off-roader.." but if they enter into other trademark battles, the opposing council can't say "Well they haven't tried t…

Post by HBKXNCUO » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #71

saagarjha wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. Well, it depends. Generally there is some sort of minimal realism when it comes to objects; you'll never have a sports car lose to a clunker, and when it does, the movie plays it as surprising. If people treat your product in a certain way, even in fiction, consumers might think that they're just missing out on the association they're supposed to…

The number of car chases I've seen in movies where motorcycles, taxis, and trucks keep pace with fast-moving vehicles makes me skeptical that is a real concern. But let's say that we are concerned about consumers forming an incorrect association. If that was the case, we also would block brands from showing their products succeeding spectacularly in unlikely or impossible situations. If we don't trust consumers to tr…

Post by vl » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #16

CM30 wrote: post #15

Have to be honest, I've always thought complaints about trademarked products in works of fiction were a silly thing to begin with. Why shouldn't a fictional universe feature products and businesses found in the real world? Are we supposedly to randomly assume all other universes don't have humvees or macbooks or the Red Cross? Who's to say the same people/companies/organisations would even be responsible in that work…

What if I took your product and had it fail spectacularly in my movie?

Post by CM30 » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:32 PM UTC

HBKXNCUO wrote: post #80

danShumway wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But to follow up, why should we protect brands from negative psychological associations in movies? We still allow real products to be used in satires, even though satires could have the same unconscious effects you reference. We still allow people to publicly criticize products. We still allow real public figures and events to be referenced in fictional media, even though the same psychological effects you reference…

>We still allow people to publicly criticize products. Yes, but you're not allowed to harm people or businesses by knowingly making false statements about the product in your criticism. I would guess that a negative fictional portrayal of the product would run afoul of that. Satire often uses branding that is fake but similar enough to the real thing that it's obvious what it's meant to portray.

Post by dsr_ » Thu, Apr 02, 2020, 10:40 PM UTC

bonestamp2 wrote: post #84

crooked-v wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called trademark erosion. An example of this historically would be aspirin, which was originally a trademarked brand name of Bayer but was legally ruled in 1918 and 1921 to have become genericized, because the company took no actions to prevent others from using the name. This generally only applies when non-holders use the trademark to market in the same field as the original business, though: not "we went t…

> It doesn't apply in this case because the Call of Duty series has nothing to do with selling vehicles. I understand that the trademark itself is only protected within the same field, but it seems pretty common to defend trademarks across other fields.