Showing posts with label Trademarks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trademarks. Show all posts

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Oy Vey! Dueling Calendars Of Jewish Hotties Trigger Trademark Throwdown

  • 19 Mar 2014 at 2:49 PM
  • Gay, Hotties, Intellectual Property, Jews, Reader Polls, Trademarks
  • Oy Vey! Dueling Calendars Of Jewish Hotties Trigger Trademark Throwdown


    Earlier in the week, I came across an interesting intellectual-property fact pattern in the New York Post. The Post reported on a calendar conflict in which the creator of the Nice Jewish Guys Calendar, an established brand, alleges trademark infringement by a newcomer, the Naughty Jewish Boys Calendar.
    I must now confess to a weakness for the Chosen People. I admire them not just for their socioeconomic and educational attainment but for their sex appeal. So I was more than happy to investigate.
    Let’s check out the competing calendars, the cease-and-desist letter, and the response thereto — along with some Hebraic hotties, of course….

    The word is already out about hot Jewish women like Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson; it’s the men who need greater exposure.
    The New York Post is diversifying nicely beyond gossip, sex, and scandal (a strategy we can appreciate here at Above the Law). In addition to book reviews, the Post now offers coverage of IP disputes:
    A battle to define male Jewish sexuality is playing out on two competing wall calendars — one filled with mensch after mensch, another that’s decidedly less kosher — and now, the battle’s gone legal.
    In 2011, a television producer named Adam Cohen founded the “Nice Jewish Guys” wall calendar, featuring pictures of smiling, fully clothed young Jewish men that any Jewish mother would be proud to call mishpacha (family). The calendar is now annual, and growing in popularity. The 2014 edition has sold more than 10,000 copies, and Cohen even secured a cross-promotional deal with the popular Jewish dating site JDate.
    But not everyone is onboard with Cohen’s version of how nice Jewish men should be — or how they should be portrayed. When Astoria playwright Duncan Pflaster placed a Craigslist ad in February for models for a “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar, he called it an alternative to the “emasculating ‘Nice Jewish Boys’ [sic] calendar currently out,” claiming that his would “show the sexy side of Judaism.”
    Pflaster soon received a letter from a lawyer representing the other calendar — actually called “Nice Jewish Guys” — claiming that “Naughty Jewish Boys” was close enough to their trademark to confuse consumers and requesting that Pflaster stop using the name.
    You can read the cease-and-desist letter — sent by Michael L. Lovitz on behalf of Jumbo Jet Inc., owner of the “Nice Jewish Guys” trademark — over here. This is the core of its kvetshing:
    Our client is understandably concerned. The Infringing Name [of "Naughty Jewish Boys"] being used for your wall calendars is highly related to our client’s registered trademark [in "Nice Jewish Guys"]. The common interplay of the terms “naughty” and “nice” makes it likely that consumers and potential customers would believe, in error, that the Infringing Name is being used in connection with products that are related to, affiliated with or under license from JJI, a belief that is reinforced by your continued reference to and comparisons with JJI’s Calendars. The products you are promoting under the Infringing Name are a natural expansion for JJI of its line of wall calendars, and therefore the use of the Infringing Name in connection with your calendar products would interfere with JJI’s prospective business opportunities, to JJI’s detriment.
    You can read the response of Duncan Pflaster — creator of the “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar, and a fan of naughty Jewish boys himself — over here. His response, which he accurately describes on his website as “polite,” is sadly not snarky (unlike such classics as the C&D responses sent to West Orange, the American Bankers Association, and Starbucks). It seems that Pflaster is taking the situation seriously.
    What’s the gist of his defense? He articulated it when he spoke with the Post:
    “I don’t think there’s any way our calendars can be confused,” he says. “I’ve tried to make that clear on the Web site and on all of the materials.”
    The calendars take a very different approach to Jewish men.
    Indeed. This side-by-side comparison prepared by the Post shows the divergence (click to enlarge):

    This image captures the contrast in approach. The “Nice Jewish Guys” calendar features mensches you can “take home to Mom.” The “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar boasts shirtless (and presumably brised) men you can take straight to bed.
    I’m not an IP lawyer, but I’m hoping that Pflaster and his “Naughty Jewish Boys” calendar prevail. I really want to get my hands on that calendar (which you can pre-order through this website).
    For those of you who are IP lawyers or who take an interest in these issues, who is in the right in this mishegas? Read the full Post article, the C&D letter, and the response, then comment on this post and vote in our reader poll:


    Does the owner of Nice Jewish Guys have a valid trademark infringement claim against Naughty Jewish Boys?

    Loading ... Loading ...
    Sexy Jewish pinup calendars in ‘naughty vs nice’ holy war [New York Post]
    Naughty Jewish Boys™ Calendar [official website]
    Nice Jewish Guys™ Calendar [official website]

    Saturday, November 9, 2013

    Office Depot Sends World’s Worst DMCA Notice To Reddit

  • 08 Nov 2013 at 1:01 PM
  • Copyright, Technology, Trademarks
  • Office Depot Sends World’s Worst DMCA Notice To Reddit


    I’m always amazed when lawyers send clearly bogus DMCA notices. It shouldn’t be hard to figure out that doing so ends badly. I’m doubly surprised, however, when it comes from big companies that should know better. And, I’m quadruple surprised when one of these companies that should know better sends a completely bogus DMCA notice to a company that absolutely understands why the notice is bogus, and is also in a position to make the world know all about a company’s bogus DMCA notice. That’s what we have here. You see, this morning, Office Depot decided to send a DMCA to Reddit.
    Yes, to Reddit….

    Now, yes, it’s possible that someone posted copyrighted material to Reddit, for which a DMCA could possibly be appropriate. But this isn’t one of those cases. The complaint is about this r/circlejerk post by heisenberg69 from seven months ago. I imagine that post isn’t going anywhere, but just in case it is, I’ve also embedded the screenshot that Office Depot helpfully included with the DMCA notice to Reddit. As you can see, heisenberg69 posted a link to this imgur image of not-quite a swastika over the Office Depot logo. We’ll repost it here for you to see:
    Of course, as the first comment points out, this isn’t even a swastika. It’s a sauwastika, the Buddhist symbol for peace. Basically, it’s a backwards swastika. Either way, let’s count the many, many, many ways in which this DMCA notice is bogus.
      1. This is not copyright infringement. At all. Office Depot’s Corporate Counsel Jared Namm appears to admit this at the very beginning of his DMCA notice. While he first says it “violates the copyrights and trademarks of Office Depot,” at no point does he explain what copyright is violated, because he can’t. He later points only to “the Office Depot trademark.” But, you cannot use a DMCA for trademark. It is only for copyright. Pretending to use a DMCA claim for a trademark claim is an abuse of the DMCA.
      2. Even if you look at the trademark issue, this is not a trademark issue. Making use of a logo in this manner is in no way an infringement on Office Depot’s trademark. There is no “use in commerce.” There is no likelihood of confusion. And there are many, many, many cases where simply parodying or mocking a logo of a company has been found to be non-infringing. Nazi-izing someone’s logo for the purpose of mocking the company is not infringement.
      3. This is not copyright infringement, part two. After trying out the bogus trademark claim, Office Depot’s Namm claims that the posting is in violation of Reddit’s terms of service. Even if this were true, that’s not a reason to send a DMCA notice.
      4. This is not a violation of Reddit’s terms of service. Again, even if you could send a DMCA based on a violation of the terms of service, this is not a violation of the terms of service. Office Depot argues that this is “defamatory, abusive, harassing, racist, hateful or violent.” I guess you could try to make an argument for “hateful,” but it’s difficult to see how that reaches the level of a terms of service violation.
      5. Merely mocking a company such as Office Depot for having Nazi-like attributes is not hate speech. It may not make much sense, but that’s not how it works. It’s even more ridiculous when you realize this isn’t even a swastika. Amazingly, even Office Depot admits this in the DMCA letter, which Namm adds as if it’s a helpful tidbit:
        A little history on the symbol as well: this particular design is not Nazi related but the original Sauwastika (facing left) vs. the Nazi Germany alteration (facing right). The left facing has been a symbol in Hindu/Buddhist art/texts that predate the Nazi usage by centuries. While this does not dismiss the use of the symbol in conjunction with our logo, in reviewing the posts it appears there is confusion on the symbol, but heisenberg69′s posting of the symbol over the Office Depot logo associates Office Depot with Nazi Germany.
        So, Office Depot admits this isn’t a Nazi symbol, and sends a screenshot in which the top comment, with the most votes on the thread, is pointing out that this isn’t a Nazi symbol… and then still says this posting associates Office Depot with Nazis.
      6. Jared Namm swore “under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.” Yet, despite mentioning copyright, nowhere does he name an actual copyright that’s been infringed, because there hasn’t been one. While he may be able to skate out from under perjury by arguing that the second half of that penalty of perjury clause was “owner of an exclusive right,” again no trademark law has been infringed and you can’t use the DMCA for trademark anyway. It’s not wise to swear under penalty of perjury to something that is almost certainly not true.
      7. The image is not hosted on Reddit. But on Imgur. Which is a different company.
      8. Oh yeah, and this was a Reddit r/circlejerk post from 7 months ago that didn’t get that much attention then and has all but disappeared from view entirely. And now, due entirely to the absolutely stupid decision by either Office Depot Corporate Counsel Jared Namm, or someone above him in management who told him to do this and who failed to heed any suggestion that this was (a) not infringement and (b) a monumentally stupid move, he went ahead and sent this notice, practically guaranteeing that the post and the image would suddenly get renewed life and attention.
      9. And, finally, sending a totally bogus DMCA notice to Reddit? Reddit, who as a community was perhaps the most instrumental community in bringing down SOPA, has no love for bogus copyright claims. Remember, Reddit is the community who organized the massive GoDaddy boycott that got GoDaddy to back down from its support of SOPA (and to eventually turn over almost its entire management team). Poking Reddit with a bogus DMCA stick for what appears to be no reason at all just doesn’t seem smart at all. 
    Incredibly, Jared Namm’s LinkedIn profile claims that he advises Office Depot on a variety of intellectual property and social media initiatives. I would imagine that picking a bogus fight with Reddit is not exactly the wisest of “social media” strategies.
    The DMCA Notification and Reddit thread at issue on the next page…

    Thursday, June 20, 2013

    A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter

  • 18 Jun 2013 at 12:05 PM
  • Fabulosity, Intellectual Property, New Jersey, Trademarks
  • A Great Response to a Cease and Desist Letter


    In case you don’t know by now, many lawyers — maybe even you — enjoy writing cease and desist letters in a foreign language called legalese. This exotic tongue often contains Latin phrases, SAT vocabulary words, and various here-and-there words (e.g., herein, heretofore, hereinafter, hereunder, thereof, thereto, therewith, thereunder, therefor, thereon, and therefrom).
    A person unfamiliar with legalese may become frightened and run to another attorney for help in deciphering this mystical language of lawyerly legend. The lawyer who has been tasked with translating legalese to English may then become annoyed, and issue a scathingly funny letter in return.
    For an example of how to write a great response to a cease and desist letter, keep reading…

    Jake Freivald, a resident of West Orange, New Jersey who once ran for town council and lost, started westorange.info, a rudimentary website that provides basic information about the town, like “places to talk [online]” and “places to get news.” It doesn’t look like a site that’s sponsored by West Orange in any way, shape, or form — unless the town hired middle schoolers to create its online presence.
    That said, not long after he started the site, Freivald received a demand letter from Richard D. Trenk, the township attorney for West Orange (and an alum of my alma mater). Here is Trenk’s cease and desist letter (retyped online by Freivald, who added sics where necessary to indicate errors in the original):
    Dear Mr. Freivald:
    I am the Township Attorney for the Township of West Orange (“Township”). It has come to our attention that, on or about May 13, 2013, you registered and began to use the domain name “westorange.info” (the “Info Domain”). The Township interprets this action as an effort by you to confuse and conflate the Township’s official domain name and Web site with the Info Domain that you maintain.
    The use of the Township’s name is unauthorized and is likely to cause confustion [sic], mistake or to deceive the public and may be a violation of the Township’s federally protected rights. The Info Domain falsely creates the impression that the Township is associated or affiliated with the Info Domain. At a minimum, this action has been taken with constructive knowledge of the Township’s name and Web site, and constitutes bad faith use of the Info Domain.
    Accordingly, the Township demands that you cease and desist from use, ownership and maintenance of the Info Domain. The Township further demands that, within ten (10) days, the Info Domain be withdrawn from the current registrar, and that you cease all current and future use of the Info Domain, or anything else confusingly similar thereto.
    The Township reserves all rights and remedies.
    Please be guided accordingly.
    Very truly yours,
    Richard D. Trenk, Township Attorney
    We hope you didn’t get “confusted” by that. Freivald’s lawyer, Stephen B. Kaplitt — formerly of Weil Gotshal, Cadwalader, the U.S. State Department, and Beacon Financial — wasn’t, and it looks like he was “guided accordingly” (don’t you hate that phrase?) when he penned this fantastic response (for a larger view, click here):
    Stephen Kaplitt: Cease and Desist Response Letter