Goodwill (store) and Trademarks

I love going to thrift stores. I love to thrift out-of-prints books, 60's glasses, old magazines... and funny fake trademarks.

Here are my two latest finds. The "Gaudy" tee- shirt speaks for itself, but I wonder about the Crocodile tee shirt. Do I reallly see a crocodile eating a person alive (are these dangling limbs?) , or did I indulge too much lately in late-late nights movies ?(Hello Rob Zombie)...

Pop! Goes the Flying Nanny

I recently discovered this brand of popcorn, Gary Poppins. I was attracted to this brand because of the pleasant associations I make with Mary Poppins, even though, as I wrote last Fall, Mary is anything but goody two shoes. I learned on the Urban Dictionary site that a Gary Poppins is a "the male version of mary poppins, a goody two shoes." I like some parts of the Mary Poppins book, the dance under the sea, her never wanting to look "nice", and some parts of the Mary Poppins movie, the fake views of London, the self-cleaning nursery.

I was surprised at first that Disney had let the brand Gary Poppins be registered. Disney owns the Mary Poppins trademark, and the Mary Poppins trademarks not owned by Disney are listed as cancelled on TESS, including one that would have been used for baby carriages, baby strollers. But Gary Poppins is not a registered trademark, and Disney does not seem to mind the Gary Poppins popcorn, au contraire.... So my question is purely theorical: does Gary Poppins dilute the Mary Poppins trademark? The logo shows a man, dressed in a bowler hat (just like the one worn by Mr. Banks in the movie), holding open an umbrella, with flying kernel of pop corn, ressembling snow flakes, fall from it unto the ground. It does not tarnish the Mary Poppins TM: pop corn is a wholesome (ahem) food, all-american, food eaten during games, fairs, watching a movie.. It could dilute it though, the umbrella, the bowler hat, the name almost identical, but for one letter.

Mary sometimes deals with food in the book, as in the enchanting gingerbread story. There is even a Mary Poppins in the Kitchen book! No pop corn recipes though.

Imagine A World Without Dilution...

Via Boing Boing: Yoko Ono is trying to prevent singer ans song writer Lennon Murphy from registering "Lennon", because it would dilutes the John Lennon trademark. Boing Boing provides a link to Ms. Ono's petition .

Interestingly enough, Lennon was such named because of John Lennon, but for a different reason than one could, well, imagine:

She writes on her web site:
"(... )Lennon is my first name by birth and I am regularly asked if I was named after the Beatle, having always replied no. My mother named me after "John Lennon that wrote songs, painted, and baked bread with his son". She named me for the man, not the pop star. "

Ms. Ono's petition cites Torres v. Cantina Toresella: in this 2004 case, the 4th Circuit wrote that " "Due respect" obligates the district court to give explicit and meaningful consideration to the bases underlying the TTAB's conclusion that the two marks were similar visually and in terms of pronunciation, and to the impact of these conclusions upon the district court's analysis of one or more of the nonexclusive factors set forth in Sara Lee ".

The TTAB had concluded "that "the use of [Cantine's] mark is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception" and that the mark thus was not entitled to registration. The TTAB's analysis focused on two considerations "the similarity of the goods and the similarity of the marks." The TTAB explained that "[i]n Board proceedings, `the question of likelihood of confusion must be determined based on an analysis of the mark as applied to the goods and/or services recited in applicant's application vis-a-vis the goods and/or services recited in opposer's registration, rather than what the evidence shows the goods and/or services to be.'" "

Trademark Dilution in India

Via Le Petit Musée des Marques, un article sur le détournement des marques notoires en Inde, avec deux photos surprenantes, et… colorées.

Coach v. Target

The Wall Street Journal reports that Coach filed a suit against Target in federal court last week. Coach claims that Target sold a counterfeit Coach bag, whereas Target claims that it is a real Coach bag. Target is not licensed to distribute Coach bags.

The WSJ article mentions HR 683 as one of the reasons designers and manufacturers are getting more aggressive protecting their brands and designs. Right now, trademark law, not copyright law, is the law that designers may use to protect their designs, claiming trade dress rights in design. American copyright law is not protective of designs. HR 683, if voted into law, will protect famous marks against blurring and tarnishing. One can argue that selling a Coach bag at Target tarnishes the brand. The shopping experience is hardly the same. Well, Coach does not sell pop corn and cheap hot dogs inside their store, for instance.

The WSJ article quotes a Target statement that describes its clients as "guests." The goods sold at high-end stores are becoming more and more irrelevant, but creating an original shopping experience is becoming the most important aspect of selling, for luxury retailers and discounters alike. Wal Mart is getting preppy, and may even benefit from selling khaki pants to its employees. But I digress. Is selling high end goods out of their original retail environment blurring?