Sanders Campaign Accused of Trademark Bullying By Web Site (buzzfeed.com) 476
An anonymous reader writes: Buzzfeed is reporting that "An online merchant has accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of 'trademark bullying'. after a Bernie 2016, Inc. attorney sent him a cease and desist letter regarding t-shirts, mugs, and sweatshirts depicting the candidate with historic communist leaders..." The t-shirt's designer tells Buzzfeed "He didn't seem to be the type of candidate, the type of guy, who would do something like this... I would think Bernie, or one of his staff members will step in and put an end to it. It appears to be pretty silly."
In January Ars Technica reported that lawyers for the Sanders campaign had demanded their logo be removed from pages on Wikipedia -- before later withdrawing that DMCA notice.
In January Ars Technica reported that lawyers for the Sanders campaign had demanded their logo be removed from pages on Wikipedia -- before later withdrawing that DMCA notice.
Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
Either way its not a story.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech. You can make fun of political figures or sell products making fun of them. I mean, wouldn't it be scary if in this world, you cannot say anything that someone would be considered douche?
They know they have no legal ground but sue as a bullying tactic. Sad.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
defending a trademark is not bullying.
in fact, its required, or else you lose trademark status.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
You can't just trademark your likeness and shut down all political parody or it would soon cease to exist.
Correct. Political parody is explicitly protected as fair comment - this explicit protection was established in the famous Larry Flynt "free speech" trial [wikipedia.org] over a fake ad in Hustler magazine with a fake interview with Moral Majority founder discussing his first sexual encounter as a Campari liqueur fueled romp with his mother in an outhouse. It had nothing to do with Jerry Falwell's trademark/IP rights to his name or likeness, and everything to do with political discourse, of which parody is considered a valid form. Incidentally, parody can be considered "fair use" in most contexts with public figures, not just political ones.
And yet...
Parody for political commentary is protected as part of the public right to discourse. Making money doing so is not. So, no, Bernie Sanders can't sue you for making a picture of him doing bong hits with Che Guevara and posting it online. (Or he could sue, but he wouldn't win, at least on free speech grounds.) But if you started selling the images - then you would run afoul of his personality rights [dmlp.org], by which using someone's name or likeness to make money is something he could sue for and win, because money making ventures are considered outside the realm of pure free discourse and becomes "exploitative."
So bottom line - make fun of a political figure with their likeness? No problem. Try to make money doing it? Yeah, problem.
One last note... you don't have to sue anyone and everyone who uses your trademark in order to defend it. You do, however, have to demonstrate that you are defending it in cases where there is a significant likelihood that it may cause confusion. For example, if you trademarked Slurm brand soda, and someone else produced Slurm brand automobiles, you don't have to sue them if you don't plan to make automobiles yourself. You do have to sue if they are infringing on your trademark in an area where you want to say that you hold yourself as having the rights to. (There are some exceptions with really well known brands like Coca Cola, but Apple doesn't have to sue every Apple Fruit Stand or Apple Moving & Storage business in the country because it's not diluting their trademark on computers and electronics.)
Re: (Score:2)
And Trademark is defend it or lose it.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech does not permit breaking copyright / trademark laws
Freedom of speech is not a right to make a profit.
Freedom of speech does not exonerate you from defamation.
Oh and Freedom of speech only protects you from your government, not from a private person or corporation, and even within it's scope it does a shit job.
Re: (Score:3)
I stretch the First Amendment no thinner than the the U.S. Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stretched it. The Court held that fair use is the statutory implementation of a First Amendment limit on the scope of copyright.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
Join the Communist Party USA right here. [salsalabs.com] Website hosted right in the USA. Clearly, these people should be in prison, but aren't. Sounds like you're just making up bullshit, how on Earth did you get +5 Informative?
So why haven't these been shut down? How many of them asked Trump's permission before using his likeness? Let me guess: free speech for me, but not for thee, right?
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
That sure sounds like democracy in action to me. (/sar)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit. Parodies are protected speech, which would've covered this case even if the person's name were a trade-mark. No, we are seeing the good old legal intimidation — as in "I can pay my lawyers more, so I'll drive you out of business before we get to a judge".
I wish this were true, but it is not. Che Guevara T-shirts and other paraphernalia
Re: (Score:2)
"Parodies are protected speech, which would've covered this case even if the person's name were a trade-mark."
Not quite. Parodies are an affirmative defense. If the trademark owner disagrees, you must argue your case and a Judge decides whether the use is a legitimate parody and, if it is, you are not liable for damages under the infringement statues. It's a fine distinction.
A defense that the First Amendment requires (Score:3)
Parodies are protected speech
Not quite. Parodies are an affirmative defense.
An affirmative defense that the First Amendment requires courts to recognize. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a second successive extension of a subsisting copyright term in Eldred v. Ashcroft, it also held that fair use and the unprotectability of ideas constitute the implementation of the First Amendment in copyright law. So you're both right: free speech is protected, and an affirmative defense is how this protection is asserted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Politician != government. The likeliness of people vs communists does not make it satire either.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
Please reference the statute that says that being a Communist or showing support for Communism is a federal crime.
Hint: you won't be able to, because such a law doesn't exist. And, if it did exist, it would be thrown out immediately for being unconstitutional, as it would clearly violate the first amendment's right to free assembly.
There is absolutely no law banning communism, just like there is no law saying you can't put a white sheet over your head and march down the street with the KKK.
How in the fuck is this scored Insightful?
On the books, not in force (Score:3)
Check out this gem of American history: the Communist Control Act of 1954
From the article: "In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional".
Re: (Score:3)
I really like your binary thinking.
It is possible that the red scare was an overreaction AND that the CPUSA was funded by a hostile power that had openly declared their intent.
There is no longer any doubt that CPUSA was getting funds from Stalin. Those records are all open today.
Which didn't make anybody in CPUSA a Rusky agent, but did make them a full idiot.
Re: Yawn. (Score:3)
Profit != Speech
The guy can make as many of the shirts as he wants. He just can't sell them without Sanders' permission.
That's an insane and terrible position. People should be able to criticise politicians. That's the reason the First Amendment codifies protections for freedom of speech, of the press, and of petition. Also, generally speaking, anything you are allowed to do, you are allowed to pay someone else to do on your behalf. So if you're allowed to design and make a shirt signaling your opposition to politician X, you're also allowed to buy a shirt criticising X from someone else. (And obviously, they're allowed to s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>They've been calling Trump a Racist Misogynist, despite him not saying anything racist or misogynistic
He has done both, repeatedly. Those who claim otherwise try to use some weird-assed technicalities to make it seem like his flagrant bigotry isn't ACTUALLY the specific KIND of bigotry being discussed. It literally comes down to "it's not racism it's xenophobia and that's supposed to be less evil" (and that would have been trueish if any of the imigrants he has an issue with were white - treating your o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The things he has said about and to women were flagrant misogyny too - like his recent declaration that women who seek abortions should be punished.
Hmm ... no, this isn't misogynist. If you take the position that abortion constitutes murder, then punishing the formerly-pregnant woman as an accessory to murder is entirely in keeping with standard legal practice. If anything, the fact that most pro-lifers support punishing only the (usually male) doctor is an instance of misandry: treating women as equally culpable to men is unpopular with both the left and the right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
insulting meg kelly is not the same as being a woman hater
wanting to keep illegal immigrants out is not racist
wanting to keep muslims out until we can figure out a better solution to the refugee problem is not racist (or xenophobic)
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks. I was battling with myself over whether to make those exact points. I dislike the man, but the popular accusations are almost always made in ignorance.
"My dream is to live in a nation where we can hate someone, not based on the color of their skin or which party they are associated with, but based on their words and actions." - intentionally misquoting a better man
Re: Yawn. (Score:3)
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
You are almost right on all of your points, but miss out on facts:
- It is correct that criticizing Meg Kelly is not in and of itself misogynistic, but asserting that her (valid) question was wrong because she was having her period is.
- Wanting to enforce migration laws more forcefully is not necessarily racist. But Trump has been entirely focused on latin-american immigration, to the exclusion of all else. Mostly he has been talking directly about Mexicans... which is odd since there is a near-zero net migration between the US and Mexico (really, it is slightly tilted in favor of people leaving for Mexico). That was already the trend before President Obama became the most vigorous enforcer of migration laws ever (counting "removals" and "returns", like previous administrations did). Given the singular focus on a specific country of origin which has a neutral net migration rate it is difficult to see this as anything but racist.
- The debate about excluding Muslims has been entirely focused on their religion, to the point where at least one presidential candidate has called for explicitly letting in Syrian Christians while excluding their Muslim neighbors. Our constitution explicitly prohibits the government from having laws that favor or dis-favor any religion. So while it might not be explicitly racist or xenophobic (but the rhetoric makes the latter hard to argue), it is explicitly un-American in the most basic way.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, he hasn't said anything misogynistic, except for all the times he has:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
(best video example: https://youtu.be/d32577Hom08 [youtu.be])
(other video examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com])
Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context? As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline. But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.
Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.
My mistake. (Score:2)
I thought they were looking for examples of Hillary
. For trump....
Referring to illegal immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America he said lot of them were criminals, drug users or rapists before they came to the USA.
Wanted to build a wall, fence would be the term Democrats prefer, to ensure the border of the USA.
After one of the terrorist attacks from a muslim immigrant he said the USA should not allow any muslim immigrants in until Congress had figured what was going
Re: (Score:3)
Funny...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.
You might also be amused/informed/scared shitless by this:
https://trello.com/c/arrNVNIt/... [trello.com]
Oh, an amusing note on the Wikipedia page:
The overwhelming support provided by the liberals has attracted much attention from historians such as Mary McAuliffe (The Journal of American History).
This is worth reading:
https://law.resource.org/pub/u... [resource.org]
It's important to note, and this is from Wikipedia, that this is also true:
Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it.
Further reading and research can be done here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/gran... [gpo.gov] (Loading poorly.)
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~cal... [fsv.cuni.cz] (Loads of good information.)
In other words, you're actually wrong. Now, the
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the sheer number of mostly negative and spin-heavy stories on US presidential candidates on discussion sites at the moment, almost all of which are submitted by anonymous readers, the cynic in me suspects that it's less a "story" and more and example of one of several organised smear campaigns going on, with said sites being handily manipulated by the shills... Yes, the US election, and the UK's EU referendum for that matter, are important for any number of reasons that are worthy of discussion, like broken political systems, relative merits of voting schemes, candidates views on tech and other topics, even copyright and trademark issues. Even so, a little more rigorous qualification criteria and objectivity in story selection wouldn't go amiss.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid people are proud of being stupid and making stupid quips. Thus your description of the jumbotron test only shows that you are with stupid.
Yawn, because actually reading the article is hard (Score:2)
It's important that stories like this are widely publicized so that the public can see the true face of Sanders before it's too late.
Yes, the "true face" of Sanders is what you are fiercely concerned with. In fact, it's evident that anything which might reinforce your preconceived notions is more important for you to regurgitate on your own jumbo screen - even if it handily shows you are completely misinformed.
Senator Sanders had nothing to do with this incident other than having the competence to hire a law firm which is diligent in doing their job.
The fact is - the only thing the law firm is defending is the Sander's campaign's logo a
Re: (Score:3)
It's important that stories like this are widely publicized so that the public can see the true face of Sanders before it's too late.
You are being too obvious. Might want to tone it down a bit and look legitimately concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
Either way its not a story.
While I agree this is a non story, Bernie Sanders is a public figure and a legitimate target for satire as a politician; even if it is not representative of his real political philosophy making fun of politicians for real or supposed views is a time honored tradition. Even a db is allowed to do that and plenty on all sides of the aisle do s regularly. Personally, depending on the source of the photographs a copyright violation might have occured but if Bernie dosn't own the copyright he has no claim.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
Except that nobody claimed copyright at all. This was a trademark letter. A completely different law with literally NOTHING in common.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that nobody claimed copyright at all. This was a trademark letter. A completely different law with literally NOTHING in common.
I agree, which is why I said there may be grounds for a copyright claim, if a claim was to be made, not a trademark claim.
Re: (Score:3)
He's over-reacting simply because he remembers how the Tina Fey/Sara Palin thing went down; a lot of low-information voters didn't know the difference what Fey said in character of Palin and what Palin actually said. Having said that I doubt the logos were copyrightable, I doubt the logos were trademarked and using the DMCA in this manner is improper and reeks of barratry.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of.
He probably can't do something that makes it seem like he has the endorsement of the campaign, but he can still do a LOT because the first Amendment is strongest when it comes to political speech. There's a reason you can buy Donald Trump toilet paper. [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing)
Maybe, but he has said nice things about evil communists (yes, Castro is evil) plenty of times of which we are aware:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/megana... [buzzfeed.com]
http://www.miamiherald.com/new... [miamiherald.com]
It's also quite fascinating to see what the communists say about him.
Re: (Score:2)
And you say all that like it's a bad thing.
Europe is perfectly welcome to continue on it's socialist path. We're happy to do our own thing, just like we have been happy to do since 1776. I don't know why everyone always points to Europe as being 'the correct way' when there is definitely a good whack of problems in the Eurozone that they are dealing with too.
And God knows that it hasn't been all that long since Europe had their share of ultra-Conservative nationalistic governments, which only lead to the
Re: (Score:3)
At this point, I should mention that I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican.
I also have a picture of myself, in my Dress Blues, standing right next to President Carter. I am not a Democrat.
There are pictures of me with drug dealers, artists, common criminals, and even a few other famous people.
There's even a picture of me with a cousin of a man named Aidid. I can assure you, I am not a war lord. I was, on the other hand, in Somalia at the time - purely
This isn't even a story. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: This isn't even a story. (Score:3)
Re: This isn't even a story. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody has called Trump "literally Hitler" - since that would be physically impossible. Identical speeches ? Also echoed in the speeches of the only NAZIs to every actually run a country for an extended period of time WITHOUT being at war (notably Verwoerd, Botha and Vorster's) speeches. Identical proposals and policies to not-yet-in-power Hitler ?
Entire speeches that could have been quoted from Mein Kampf ?
Literally Hitler ? No.
As close as makes no fucking difference ? Only somebody who is utterly ignorant of history could fail to see it.
But then - ALL NATIONALISM is Nazism, the NAZIs abandoned the socialist part of their name long before they ever even got in power - hell during their failed coup attempt in 1921 they killed all the socialists in parliament before being thrown out. The very first thing they did after president Hitler declared himself Fuhrer was to kill every socialist in parliament (again) - 400 people executed in a single night.
But the nationalism - they clung to that. All nationalism is 100% absolutely and utterly inexcusable evil. And it's an evil no less prevalent in the United States than it was in Germany.
Those who love their country, and associate that love with a specific nation - are doomed to repeat ALL the worst evils humanity have visited on one another because with zero exceptions it was ALWAYS nationalism that drove it. It was Nationalism that drove appartheid (hell the party doing it was even called the "National Party"). It was Nationalism that drove the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Nationalism that exploded in the genocide in Serbia under Milosovich.
There is no version of Nationalism, especially ethno-Nationalism that has ever or could ever fail to lead to atrocity. All nationalists are Hitler WANABES. Nearly none of them know it. They seem to only ever figure that out AFTER they did something fucking terrible.
Re: This isn't even a story. (Score:2, Insightful)
Can never be slander: "Jack wants to kill his wife"
Can be slander: "Jack is killing his wife".
Calling Trump Hitler is not accusing him of a crime. Ergo it cannot be slander. It is, at most, saying his speeches advocate policies that would be criminal but thats still free speech.
Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.
Even so there is no evidence to suggest Sanders would sue or prosecute you for doing so. He has not sued Fox which did that a
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone actually called Trump 'Hitler' ? Or have they just called him a fascist?
There's actual legitimacy to calling him a fascist, and even more in calling him a proto-fascist, because he says proto-fascist things into cameras and microphones on a regular basis. One could define fascism as:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I wouldn't piss in Sander's mouth if his teeth were on fire, but in this case the dirbag's lawyers are correct at least in that the similarities of Sander's trademarked logo's and Liberty maniac's use of nearly identical logo's is actionable and trademark laws don't allow them the opportunity to not take action without putting their marks in jeopardy.
It's not a copyright thingy it's a trademark thingy and trademarks are very different legally; there is no parody exception to trademark law, in fac
Re: (Score:2)
yes, it is, actually.
you're quite right on that point.
in fact, the term is really a bit of a misnomer.
what it is is a political system that combines democracy and free trade with a strong welfare state, attempting to achieve the best of both worlds using the best parts of each, while correcting for the inadequacies of each. separately they have strengths and weaknesses. combines, they compensate for each's weakness and makes the whole stronger.
the problem comes from simpletons like you who cannot understand
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe this was modded up! Talking about public figures (which includes people who are trying to get elected president) and commentary about their policy is a form of free speech. Additionally, parody and satire are protected forms of speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is a defense. It is NOT a by-rights use. If you're going to poke a sleeping bear, you have to be ready to fight when he wakes up.
Bad lawyers (Score:2)
If that's the quality of advisers that Sanders is attracting, he's got a problem with his ability to identify good staff.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the quality of advisers that Sanders is attracting, he's got a problem with his ability to identify good staff.
Now find us some good lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
I would say, in that regard, he has good staff. They said, they acted on their own. As the record stands, Sanders can rightfully claim innocence in the matter, and they would possibly take all the blame, if it goes wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that if the campaign denies association with this claim, then the filing attorney has no cause, and the suit will be thrown out. This whole thing is bizarre.
Re: (Score:2)
So if they didn't consult with the campaign, does that mean they are without cause? Are they retained in any way by the campaign, or have any standing whatsoever to act on their behalf?
Judge for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
Well, apparently in the summary there is no link to the source. I thought our new Slashdot overlords were going to do that from now on? So I took it upon myself to do so, to let everyone judge for themselves. Don't want to see the original graphic that sparked this discussion? Why not? Afraid of the truth?
Here is Liberty Maniacs main page at libertymaniacs.com [libertymaniacs.com]. The link to the shirt that Bernie's Brownshirts are trying to shut down is here. [libertymaniacs.com] The other shirts on the site are mocking Donald Trump "We Shall Overcomb", the NSA "the only part of the government that listens", a T-shirt depicting police officers beating the shit out of a citizen, another Trump "Idiocracy", Trump again mocking his hair, "Carlin was Right", "I'm Ready for Oligarchy", a stormtrooper with the words "Support the Troops", a picture of that one guy in the crowd with his arms crossed refusing to Heil Hitler, and Hillary for Prison. Oh, and the Sanders "Bernie is my Comrade" parody.
Seriously, if anyone has a problem with this site, I really don't see it. Most of the merchandise is clearly mocking the Right, with only two there that the Left could possibly be offended about. And honestly those are probably just there to cover their bases and not lose any sales. The Sanders one is pretty uncreative, I mean it's an obvious joke to add his face to the famous "parade of Marxists" seeing as Bernie's own views are quite close to theirs. Don't believe me, ask real-live Marxists what they think about him. [marxist.com] Spoiler alert: he's not far enough left for their taste. Anyone who wants to suppress T-shirt is just a thin-skinned asshole who can dish out the mockery but not take it. Guess what: that sort of thing cuts both ways. Feel the Bern!
Re: (Score:2)
The American Indian stuff depicts people who got screwed by both parties. So does the cop beating on people one. So does the NSA one.
These guys
Re: (Score:2)
There's not a single "left-right" dimension to politics. Libertarianism is pro-liberty, both "individual" liberties (abortion, legalized drug use, gun rights, free speech) and "business" liberties. (Hard-core libertarians often act as if those two dimensions are enough to categorize or decide practically all politics; I disagree.) If libertarianism is stringently opposed to any -ism, that thing is totalitarianism, not progressivism or conservatism as practiced in the US today.
Re:Judge for yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
You are completely missing the point. This isn't about left or right. It's about trademark.
For example, you can't just take some trademarked item, make some merchandise, and sell it. It doesn't matter if it's Mickey Mouse, Coca-Cola, or Bernie Sanders. If there is an established trademark, you need to get permission first.
This isn't even a story. It'd be like some random schmuck making and selling Star Wars related merchandise without getting permission.
Re: (Score:2)
We do have a problem of unlicensed trademark use and/or use of someone's likeness without their permission or a payout schedule. Of course anyone with a brain could have grasped that, so let's just look past that and say "YEAH FUCK THE RIGHT, MAN!"
What a douchebag (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
He incorporated his campaign? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blame the education system in my country where they taught it to me as a third language. Stoopid system!
Don't worry, we all have ADHD around here. We'll make fun of your English as a third language skills for a day or two and then move on to something else.
It's one happy collective (Score:2)
One word... (Score:2)
Satire.
Dude can sell these t-shirts all he wants because they are satire and that's a protected form of speech. If it wasn't, Weird Al, MAD Magazine, etc would have been out of business a long time ago.
Re:One word... (Score:4, Informative)
"It must be remembered that the line between trademark bullying and rightful enforcement practices is not always black and white. In light of the fact that mark owners are shouldered with the affirmative obligation to personally police violations of their intellectual property rights; aggressive enforcement campaigns do not necessarily rise to the level of abusive bullying tactics as previously described by the USPTO. By failing to control third party use, a mark owner’s rights may be substantially restricted."
"Thus, when encountering a questionable letter regarding the violation of another’s rights in a mark, the recipient must discern the following: 1) whether the enforcer’s mark is actually being used in commerce; 2) the similarities of the marks at issue; 3) the specifically delineated goods and services used in connection with the alleged senior user’s mark; and 4) the trade channels and consumers that encounter the mark alleging superior rights."
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015... [ipwatchdog.com]
Put it to you this way, the NFL would have something to say if they guy did the something with the NFL.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa dude full stop,
1. the Sander's campaign is a corporation, not a governmental entity, it has no obligation to observe the 1st amendment.
2. there is no parody or satire exception under trademark law.
WTFITAWIIH (Score:2)
What the fuck is this? And why is it here?
Bernie's problem (Score:2)
Political Speech (Score:2)
He doesn't want to be associated with Stalin!? (Score:2)
So let me get this straight. Someone makes a shirt that associates Sanders with Stalin. Sanders, who is trying to win a presidential campaign, uses the same trademark laws that everyone else uses to make him stop doing it. Think of the children!!
Whats the next story? (Score:2)
Sanders campaign isn't completely carbon neutral? Sanders campaign used closed source software?
Fighting back against bullying is "bulllying" now? (Score:4, Insightful)
I may not be a huge Sanders fan, but Sanders frankly is comedy gold. So if you are going for funny, it ain't that hard. But placing pictures of him next to Stalin like they were buddies isn't even the slightest bit funny. Even if you're trying to poke fun at your own ignorance for not being able to tell the difference between anybody to the left of you and a Communist, that's just sad, not funny. So clearly, humor was not the goal here.
This isn't comedy; its straight up character assassination. If his lawyers don't try to go after it while he's running for high office, they aren't doing their jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually we have proof to the contrary. The article explicitly states that the lawfirm did this without the instruction or consent of the campaign that hired them. The seller actually said he is confident that Bernie would put a stop to it as soon as he is informed.
It will be telling to see if that prediction turns out to be accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Either the lawyers stop this without it hitting the press (not this time) or Bernie gets to publically slap lawyers on the wrist. It's win-win.
In the real world though, the lawfirm either broke their contract or were allowed to go after anything they deemed infringements within the instructions and with consent.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope so, because it's a shit case. It's clearly political satire / parody, which is free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's a public figure?
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what: the legal issue has nothing to do with the likeness of Sanders being depicted next to historical communist leaders. The issue is with the improper use of the trademarked "Bernie" logo.
The imagery is free speech, and any judge worth wearing the robe would say "too fucking bad" to any legal action brought about on that. The trademark infringement, however, may be a legit legal question.
Re: (Score:2)
These are a lot of issues from the last civil war. It is just at some point the Democrats became Republicans and the Republicans became Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay i can see your tanks and stuff and raise you by https://www.victoriassecret.co... [victoriassecret.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Your paltry pistol ain't doing shit against a military arsenal."
A "military arsenal" which performs well against other large armies in the open field but has not done well against armed civilian populations. It managed a costly draw against North Korea, lost to the Viet Cong, and lost even to the ragtag Taliban.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, that's because you're using the wrong definition of lost. But yes, the military/government would have a very hard time dealing with an armed insurrection. Politically, it simply would be impossible. They can not, for example, drop a bunch of Hellfire missiles into downtown Boston and expect the rest of the planet to not intervene.
At any rate, Korea, Viet Nam, and even the Taliban lost the military war vs. the US. You're using the wrong definition when you say the US lost those conflicts.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on if you're talking about the officers or the enlisted men.
Re: US election (Score:2)
Re: US election (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much everybody but the very top brass
So basically all the Gomer Pyle's then.
That's how we got this whole "women in combat" and "gay integration" thing. Needless to say it will go away instantly with a Republican president.
Didn't go away with the second Bush, considering women have been piloting combat aircraft since 1993.
And Women flying AH64 Apaches who kill from above with 30mm cannons and Hellfires.
And gay people have been fighting for this country ever since this country was founded.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been women Marines for quite some time, and many male Marines are very respectful, if not outright fearful of them.
You don't want to screw around with a WM.
Re: (Score:2)
There were some Navy and Marine troops at the tech school I attended during my stint. I will never forget seeing a formation of mixed sex marines stomping past a formation I was in. The WM's had arms bigger than my legs and honestly the only way they stood out from the males was that they were shorter on average.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because there are absolutely no Democrats that ever saddle up with big business. No wait, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is exactly that.
Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT? (Score:5, Interesting)
I give a shit. Me, right here.
You asked, I answered. Why do I give a shit? Because political speech, and parody, are protected under the first amendment.
I have no idea what the rest of your post is on about, but you might see a doctor about adjusting your medication.
Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT? (Score:5, Informative)
The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.
Re:Who gives a shit! WHO GIVES A SHIT? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's disappointing is Bernie's campaign in general. First, it's really shitty that the media has pretty much nullified much of his efforts but the gaffes are pretty rough to accept. He's not done a very good job at campaigning, not at all. I first noticed it when he allowed the microphone to be taken and the BLM folks to interrupt him.
I really like him - I've even met him. I'm very likely to still vote for him. I've sent his campaign some money. But, even with what the media has done to his campaign - he's NOT helping. Well, more accurately, the folks he has supporting him and working for him are not helping. It's much easier to campaign in small States and he really does seem an ill fit for the national campaign trail.
He's going to be yet another politician that I've voted for who hasn't a shot in hell at winning. I find that oddly comforting. I've only voted for the winning candidate, in the presidential election, once - and I've voted every chance I got since 1978.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not ignorant at all to lump in 330 million other people with that guy you replied to.
What is it like to be an arrogant smug asshole?