Comments on: News & Notes – 1/27/2010

By: moncler jackets

moncler jackets — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:48:00 +0000

Moncler jacket offers men and womenmoncler discount

By: tim

tim — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:26:22 +0000

@Andy: Worse than Kelo v. City of New London?

But I agree, it’s pretty @#$%ing bad.

By: tim

tim — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:14:22 +0000

Iker climbs like an American!

By: the dirtbag

the dirtbag — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:58:27 +0000

Well, for instance there is a company up in the Northwest that makes shirts/jackets/hoodies with the North Face Logo but with the word North West where North Face would be. They sell at all the cool ski shop and they aren’t some teenager — but an actual apparel line up here. That would seem like a much better target and much more of a legit complaint. Trademark law is trademark. The North Face certainly has a point either way and a right to protect its brand, but who they went picking on is curious to me. I’m sure the other apparel company took notice of the South Butt lawsuit — the north face only had to hire there lawyers once. Would a teenager from MO have paid attention to a case against the Seattle apparel company…probably not. Maybe it’s a kill a bunch of birds with one really awkward stone.

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:11:57 +0000

Perfect example of this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

And t-shirt ordered. TNF makes some good stuff, but they are overdue for some fun being poked at them after a whole generation of every kid on campus wearing a Denali fleece.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:03:55 +0000

I had heard of this controversy through the interwebs, but never really saw any South Butt clothes around, or heard anyone really talking about. Then I visited my sister in suburban St. Louis, and saw South Butt clothes everywhere. My 11 year old niece knew everything about it, as it is apparently very popular apparel for teens and pre-teens in the area. Weird.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:46:11 +0000

Regardless of the SCOTUS decision businesses still have copyrights and trademarks. TNF may be able to make a case that since TSB’s brand positioning is so similar to its own that it violates these rights. I think this is a situation of TNF wanting to nip a problem in the bud before it turns into a potentially bigger issue down the road.

By: Julian

Julian — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:28:51 +0000

That’s interesting. So your lawyer/ski buddy’s take boils down to: TNF is working under the “no such thing as bad press” theory? Seems kinda risky, no? Bad press spreads much faster and farther these days.

I think you also mean knowingly “cause confusion, or… cause mistake”, in which case The South Butt is totally safe. I mean, the point of TSB is that it refers to/plays off TNF but quite explicitly isn’t TNF. But I don’t know the law well enough to really say for sure.

Either way, I’m less convinced now that TNF had to take action here.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:24:18 +0000

Wait, I’m confused.

I thought the recent Supreme Court decision regarding corporations as it relates to their free-speech rights as “citizens” makes The South Butt’s existence legit. If corporations have the same rights as individuals with regards to 1st Amendment rights, and individuals can have similar names to one another, wouldn’t the logical extension to this argument be that corporations can co-exist with similar names and appearances?

Ok, so it’s not the strongest argument, but WTF, anyway. Worst Supreme Court decision in the last 100 years. Period.

By: the dirtbag

the dirtbag — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:12:39 +0000

It’s a curious trademark. I talked with my lawyer(ski partner). I’ve been going through trademark issues which he has been helping me through. His take on it that case was that the North Face took the nuclear approach. They dropped a huge bomb, when there were more subtle approaches to take. The standard too is that no one is going to knowingly mistake the South Butt for the North Face. It’s seems that The North Face chose to send a message to the community by picking the most ridiculous instance — the one that was certain to garner a bunch of publicity.