Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Flickr
Friendfeed
Last.fm
LinkedIn
MySpace
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Twitter
Vimeo
YouTube
What I’ve Been Up To Lately
- mazel tov to @bluenatic and @grandstreet on the birth of their baby girl 1 week ago
- RT @JTownCrier: Tropper? Kolko? Margulies? Balkany? Dwek? Rubashkin? NO. Moetzes Gedolei Torah condemn AVI WEISS as more offensive. 1 week ago
- Rorschach from Watchmen is the new Freddy Krueger http://bit.ly/7s61Cj 1 week ago
- More updates...
IP Freely
Dear Mr. Sofio,
I am the publisher and editor-in-chief of the website Jewschool.com, as well as the proprietor of a Cafepress.com shop called “The Jewschool Sto’” which was, until recently, selling an item that your client, TeenageMillionaire.com, deemed to be in violation of their intellectual property rights. The item in question was specifically a t-shirt which parodied TeenageMillionaire’s “Jesus Is My Homeboy” shirt, by adding the traditional Jewish garb of a yarmulke (skullcap) and payot (sidelocks) to their Jesus caricature, and altering the text to say, “Jesus was a kike.”
Despite your client’s contention that the work is infringing upon their copyright, my work indeed qualifies as a legitimate parody (even in consideration of its derivative nature) and under the precedent of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (510 U.S. 569) falls under the protection of fair use statutes.
In that your client’s claim is clearly without merit, I humbly request that you rescind your notice to Cafepress to halt the sale of the item in question, and allow me to go about conducting my business without further interference.
Thank you,
Daniel Sieradski
Jewschool.com
cc: Norine Moy, Cafepress.com
***
Dear Mr. Sieradski:
My client, Teenage Millionaire holds a copyright and a trademark in the “Jesus Is My Homeboy” design. Parody is not a defense to trademark infringement.
There is no fair use in trademark infringement. As such you are unfairly capitalizing on my client’s established brand, and your request to withdraw our notice to CafePress is hereby denied.
We therefore demand that you immediately:
(1) cease manufacturing, advertising and selling all unauthorized merchandise embodying the infringing artwork and provide us with a letter of assurance that all infringing activities have been stopped and will not be resumed or repeated at any time in the future;
(2) provide us with a full accounting of the total gross proceeds of the sale of such merchandise, so that we may ascertain the damages incurred; and
(3) provide us with a detailed statement of the remaining inventory of such merchandise in the your possession or under your control and turn over to us such remaining inventory.
Please be advised that if you do not cooperate with the above demands, my clients are prepared to proceed with legal action to enforce their rights.
Nothing in this email should be construed as a waiver of any rights and remedies of Teenage Millionaire, all of which are expressly reserved.
Best regards,
Joseph M. Sofio
***
Dear Mr. Sofio,
Parody actually does constitute a defense in the case of trademark infringement so long as there is no possibility that customers will presume that the original trademark owner is connected with or approving of the parody. In this particular case it is clear that a “wholesome Christian company” would not by any means approve of nor be in any way connected with such a product. In other words, it defies sense to presume that the same company responsible for “Jesus Is My Homeboy” would create a t-shirt reading “Jesus was a kike.”
If your claim is dillution of trademark, which seems to be the only grounds from which you can approach the matter, the parodied design intends in no way to tarnish the reputation of Teenage Millionaire and I find it highly unlikely that you can demonstrate dillution as such. The shirt was conceived shortly after the release of The Passion Of The Christ and is offered as social commentary on the nature of antisemitism and the irony inherent within the historical persecution of Jewish people on the part of Christian people who obviously have lost sight of the fact that Jesus himself was a Jewish person. Ie., a Christian person who might refer to a Jewish person as a “kike” is oblivious to the fact that Jesus himself was also a “kike.” I do not see how making this point harms the reputation of Teenage Millionaire and it is doubtful that a court will either.
I’d also like to add that I find the concept of trademarking and copyrighting a religious icon to be incredibly distasteful and, frankly, unethical. If Jesus had an estate to represent his interests, your client would likely have never been able to copyright or trademark his likeness to begin with.
Thus, I will not comply with your demands, because I believe they are without merit, and would like to note, in addition, that you will have a rather hard time serving me with papers as I am currently residing in Israel and do not intend to return to the United States for some time, if ever. On top of that, I have been unemployed for nearly a year, with no savings to speak of, so good luck seeking damages. You should also take under consideration that the t-shirts are manufactured by a print-on-demand service and therefore there is a) no inventory, b) I earn roughly $3 per shirt (whereas Cafepress takes the vast majority of earnings for their part in manufacturing and distribution), and c) I haven’t sold more than a dozen of them. If you’re really intent on taking me to court for $36, be my guest. It’s probable that you will lose the case, but if by some miracle of God you don’t, you ain’t gonna get nothin’ outta me anyway except to further impoverish the impoverished which, I must say, would be an incredibly un-Christian action on your client’s part.
In such a scenario I can only wonder really, what would Jesus do?
I think he’d let it go.
Thanks for your prompt reply,
Daniel Sieradski
Jewschool.com
***
[Update] Thanks, everyone, for your support in this matter. Here is my latest e-mail to Teenage Millionaire’s lawyer:
Dear Mr. Sofio,
I believe I should bring to attention the following few facts in hopes of compelling you further to rescind your notice to Cafepress to halt production on my t-shirts.
First of all, your client is clearly infringing upon the trademark of Land-O-Lakes Butter. Notice the “halo” and the placement of the hands? I may have to inform them of this fact if you resist cooperation.
Secondly, there are two relatively recent high profile court cases which justify my position, both of which are examples of commercial parody, in which the plaintiffs — the trademark holders — lost: Fox News Corp. vs. Al Franken and Tommy Hilfiger vs. Nature Labs.
Thirdly, your client may have trademarked the phrase “Jesus is my homeboy” — but that in no way is grounds to claim infringement on anyone else’s use of “is my homeboy,” as you did in the case of the Cafepress shop “Free Will” and their “Arnold is my homeboy” shirt. Jesus may exclusively be your client’s homeboy, but your client can not de facto claim that everyone else is too. If that is your claim, then you also have an obligation to pursue litigation against all of these people as well, else you will be found to be in abandonment of your trademark:
http://www.zazzle.com/products/product/product.asp?product_id=235077348006669147
http://shoten.free.fr/index.php?2004/09/26/7-tee-shirt-fabrice-is-my-homeboy
http://www.shirts-t-shirts.com/design/label/38/kerry-is-my-homeboy-pot-t-shirt/
http://www.phatpimpclothing.com/hi/phatpimp/getsatanismyhomeboy.html
http://www.jinx.com/scripts/details.asp?affid=-1&productID=307
http://www.emerchandise.com/product/TSBLE0012/s.zRIyfPti
http://www.wickedcoolstuff.com/sttrmrspmyho.html
http://www.loveinwar.com/store.cfm
http://buddhaismyhomeboy.com/
http://www.heebmagazine.com/store/storepop.php?id=8&tp=13
The pursuit of your client’s claim is startin’ to look expensive, ain’t it?
In that, I would also like your client to familiarize himself with the argument against copyrighting popular phrases, such as “so and so is my homeboy,” in hopes that he may realize what a disservice it does to creativity and humanity.
Fourthly, I did not use the phrase “is my homeboy” on my shirts. Thus while “Jesus is my homeboy” may be your client’s trademark, I question whether the actual image of Jesus which I utilize on my shirt is. If that image is merely copyrighted, your trademark infringement claim is moot.
Finally, are you familiar with the concept of genericide? As demonstrated by the number of individuals utilizing the phrase “is my homeboy” on the merchandise listed above, your client’s trademark stands in extraordinary danger of losing its exclusive status.
In other words, you don’t have a case, and your claims are frivolous. So if you would please, inform Cafepress that you rescind your notice.
By the way, I hope you like negative press. Your little IP witchhunt will do more to tarnish the reputation of Teenage Millionaire than any parody ever will.
Best regards,
Daniel Sieradski
Jewschool.com
***
[Update] Here.
where do they claim to be a “wholesome Christian company”?
they don’t need to. that’s the logical presumption based on the product they offer.
i don’t think that’s a logical presumption – not in this day and age.
http://www.teenagemillionaire.com/pd/p/1022.html
does that shirt look like something a “wholesome Christian company” would sell? (emphasis on the girls exposed breast)
the “jesus is my homeboy” line is a secular appropriation of christian imagery.
Go Dan! Go Dan! It’s yer birthday! Go Dan!
*Does a little dance…*
Hey M.,
If you want a leter like that sent on fancy legal stationary, let me know… (gratis, of course, since you do excellent legal research on your own).
hahaha… i always love reading mobius’ exchanges.
Way to slam that slimebag, Dan.
I think the $36 was the point to make.
We’re rooting for you, man. It’s too bad, too, because I really wanted one of those shirts…keep fighting for our people’s right to have a little fun with Jesus, who was one of the Tribe anyway.
This is hilarious, though I do see their point about the copyrightn infringement. If you had drawn your own jesus with payes and yarmulke, that would be one thing, but to steal THEIR jesus and modify it for your needs may indeed constitute copyright infringement.
Either way, I want to know who the fuck is paying $28 a piece for their shitty tee shirts?
but turkeyleg … fair use provides that i can take and modify their original image in the context of creating a parody. the whole gist is for it to be recognizable in some sense — ie., that people can tell specifically which item i’m parodying. therefore, it is an infringement, but it’s a permitted form of infringement.
mobius, I think your shirt is great, and this letter is just utter crap. but the presumption that the company “teenage millionaire” has anything to do with the christian community is wrong. as already pointed out, they’re just another secular purveyor of kitschy-cool jesus-junk. is jesus ashton kutscher’s homeboy? did anyone say kabalah-boy? idunno.
i know they’re not a christian company…but that’s not the impression you’d get if you saw their shirt w/o context.
All of the trendy born again musicians I’ve run into seem to be wearing “JIMH” hats… it’s the trendy way to indicate that god is on your side, apparently. I think I prefer your version just as you put it, to answer the red neck “Christian” klansmen, etc
“teenagemillionare” shows its true colors, as a front for religious fanatics who terrorize innocent people and want to deny americans of their freedom.
jesus gave up his worldly goods. i think it’s abundantly clear that “teenagemillionare” is an immoral and un-christian profiteering organization. these fools give christianity, if not all religions, a bad name. all their profits should be confiscated and donated to charitable organizations that help the poor and needy.
Did you notice that the original design is *similar* to the Land O’ Lakes butter girl?
here is a link:
http://www.msu.edu/course/iah/.....age759.gif
notice the *O* is similar to a halo?
how about the hand pose?
??
How does the “George W. Bush is my Homeboy” t-shirt play into this?
http://www.zazzle.com/products.....8006669147
Hot t-shirt, man. And I’m glad BoingBoing picked up your post. The EFF should fight for you.
Interesting legal analysis. But I’d like to sue you for spelling infringement. You have dilluted the proper spelling of diluted in my mind. Ahole.
I love it. If I wasn’t unemployed myself I think I would add to you’re $36. I just love it.
Hey,
That’s a funny shirt. Keep up the good fight, as we all know you are in the right here.
Fuck’em. The pagans at pagansavage.com fully support jewschool.com’s freedom to mock, insult, degrade and trounce any christian nutcase… Bring it on. Now where is my credit card. T-shirts for christmas!
Just thought I’d give a shout. The lawsuit of Teenage Millionare is as frivolous as the one Bill O’Reilly had against comedy writer Al Franken, who parodied the title and news desk of The O’Reilly Factor, in a very offensive and clearly satirical way.
Also, isn’t it arguable that unless they’ve launched several lawsuits against other companies, they’re not in proper defense of their trademark, as is their obligation, and that their trademark has entered the public domain? Aside from the George Bush is my Homeboy, you can also find Buddha is my homeboy http://www.buddhaismyhomeboy.com), Sharpton is my Homeboy http://www.loveinwar.com/store.cfm), Spock is my Homeboy http://www.wickedcoolstuff.com/sttrmrspmyho.html), among others.
Don’t ever let the man get you down.
yeah, seriously dude – you just made at least $39 and I ain’t even Jewish.
you should make a shirt that says, “jesus is my lawyer”
Arnold is My Homeboy
http://www.cafepress.com/freewill/373952
who was also sent a cease and desist by Teenage Millionaire!
Bruce Lee is My Homeboy:
http://www.emerchandise.com/
Linus is My Homeboy (The Linux Linus, not the Charlie Brown one)
http://www.jinx.com/scripts/de.....ductID=307
eBay currently has:
Santa is My Homeboy
Grover is My Homeboy (the Muppet)
Johnny is My Homeboy (Johnny Damon, Red Sox player) LOT of these on eBay right now.
There’s a concept in TM law: genericide.
You may be watching it happen.
Arnold is My Homeboy
http://www.cafepress.com/freewill/373952
who was also sent a cease and desist by Teenage Millionaire!
Bruce Lee is My Homeboy:
http://www.emerchandise.com/
Linus is My Homeboy (The Linux Linus, not the Charlie Brown one)
http://www.jinx.com/scripts/de.....ductID=307
eBay currently has:
Santa is My Homeboy
Grover is My Homeboy (the Muppet)
Johnny is My Homeboy (Johnny Damon, Red Sox player) LOT of these on eBay right now.
There’s a concept in TM law: genericide.
You may be watching it happen.
Satan is My Homeboy
http://www.phatpimpclothing.co.....meboy.html
Sharpton is My Homeboy
http://www.loveinwar.com/store.cfm
Buddha is My Homeboy
http://www.buddhaismyhomeboy.com/
Kerry is My Homeboy
http://www.shirts-t-shirts.com.....t-t-shirt/
Fabrice is My Homeboy
http://shoten.free.fr/index.ph.....my-homeboy
holy shit! i can not believe that they had cafepress yank this arnold is my homeboy shirt. it’s not even remotely similar in design to their own!
are they actually saying that “[anyone] is my homeboy” is their trademark?!
aaron bisman’s dad was making “moses is my homeboy” hats for usy years before teenage millionaire’s “jesus is my homeboy” shirt ever came out!
A couple ideas for new shirts….
“Joseph M. Sofio is my homeboy”
“TeenageMillionaire.com is my homeboy”
Perhaps you would do well to make a t-shirt that says, “Jesus is my nigga,” making a joke out of modern resistance to Jesus’s color, and maintaining your “Jesus was a kike” tone of irreverence. Word play on obscenity certainly gets attention. Give me a few years on the legal issues; when I come out of law school, I’ll know more about the IP maze. Interestingly, many big companies bully small ones into abandoning their rights based on fear and lack of resources. The weekly periodical in New York City, The Village Voice, has crushed many small papers throughout the country who tried to use the word “Voice” in their titles. “Voice,” like “Journal,” “Herald,” or any other common newspaper title, cannot be owned in this way. But that did not prevent the Village Voice from monopolizing the name and illegally intimidating other newspapers. Kudos on your law savvy; research is my homeboy.
This entire exchange is a prime example of exactly what is wrong with America – people rushing to lawyers whenever they get the merest whiff of financial opportunity, dissenting points of view or percieved injustice. WWJD? He would do what he did – stand firm in his beliefs, make his case as best he could, and trust in the sense of justice and humanity inherent in all men to ultimately triumph. What would these asswipes do? Cry, moan and threaten. How far the mighty have fallen. There is your next t-shirt – WWTAD. I give you my permission to use it.
You go, Dan. Fuck teenage millionaire. You’re being far more decent about this than they deserve, and teaching them a lesson in the process. Very Jesus-like.
Dan, you’re doing fine out there. And as a fellow skirter-of-the-line, I’m pleased you’re standing up for our rights.
fuckthose “merchants for jesus” assholes, keep up the good fight
Wholesome Christian in what way? I like the Christian punker chick on this one. Try wearing that to church on Sunday.
http://www.teenagemillionaire.com/pd/p/1019.html
May the farce be with you.
Photo of Joseph Sophio, their attorney.
http://www.ascap.com/rhythmsou.....rneys.html
Let’s hope he persuades his client that getting rid of bad PR is better than having tight-fisted control of all the creativity in the universe that might ever be put on a T-shirt.
Your case is not as strong as you think. The cases you cited are not at all on point. They involve nationally famous brands and names where there was no real likelihood of confusion (fox, franken, Tommy).
Your case, on the other hand, involves obscure little known companies where people can easily confuse the 2 as coming from the same source. The pictures are almost the identical, as well as the font and the wording.
Also, there is no “parody” defense to trademark, and you were completely made to look like a fool by the attorney when you tried to raise that as a defense.
“Some parodies will constitute an infringement, some will not. But the cry of “parody!” does not magically fend off otherwise legitimate claims of trademark infringement or dilution. There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies. All they have in common is an attempt at humor through the use of someone else’s trademark. A non-infringing parody is merely amusing, not confusing
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1997).”
Courts usually find that the less known a company, the higher likelihood there is for confusion.
Furthermore, your statement regarding trademarking a religious character shows what a moron you are. They didnt obtain a trademark for jesus, they obtained it for that picture of jesus, along with that style of lettering. Obtaining a trademark is not the same as a copyright, which happens automatically. You have to meet a certain standard of originality, and the u.s. trademark office has determined that they have.
Although they wont be able to collect damages from you, because no one purchased the shirt, they will be able to obtain an injunction to disallow you from ever selling the shirt (unless they already have).
Citing to non existing legal defenses, and off point cases will not impress anyone.
actually, teenage millionaire received an incredible amount of recognition from the press over the course of the last two years, as this particular shirt was being sported by quite a number of hollywood celebrities, including brad pitt. the shirt is also distributed primarily by urban outfitters which is a nationally recognized chain. so, the fact of the matter is that they do have a high level of brand recognition, and in turn, your point is off mark.
secondly, you obviously completely misunderstood my point about trademarking jesus. it had to do with trademarking his likeness. as i said, if jesus had an estate to represent him, they would never have been able to trademark his likeness, at the very least, without obtaining licesning rights. i could not, for example, trademark a picture of nicholas cage without his permission. thus what they are engaging in, essentially, is necrophilia. if anything, jesus deserves royalties from the sale of their products.
finally there is a parody defense to trademark, it’s just not, as the quote you referenced states, as clear cut as it is in the case of copyright.
but gee, what do i know? you scored 178 on your LSATs and apparently, you know everything. did i happen to mention that i now have two IP lawyers consulting with me on this matter?
thanks.
Mobi, please. Lets not act like you were not made to look like a complete retarded ass when you cited a COPYRIGHTS case to prove parody as a defense (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (510 U.S. 569)).
It was really cute how you quickly backtracked and pretended that you knew he wasnt talking copyrights, and that parody is a defense under “fair use” in trademarks (which it isnt, fair use in trademarks does NOT include parody).
Why couldnt you just admit “hey, i really didnt know what the fuck i was talking about.”
The case you cited to prove there is fair use in trademark, were NOT fair use cases, they were “likely to confuse” cases, same as most trademark cases.
And it was quite ridiculous when you wrote:
“finally there is a parody defense to trademark, it’s just not, as the quote you referenced states, as clear cut as it is in the case of copyright. ”
LOL, it seems you have trouble understanding basic english. The quote is clearly saying that parodies are subject to the same criteria as everything else (i.e. whether it is confusing or not).
“Some parodies will constitute an infringement, some will not. But the cry of “parody!” does not magically fend off otherwise legitimate claims of trademark infringement or dilution. There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies. All they have in common is an attempt at humor through the use of someone else’s trademark. A non-infringing parody is merely amusing, not confusing ”
Read it again, and have your lawyers look it over. And whether you have lawyers working for you now, it sure as hell didnt sound like you were consulting with them before writing you first few posts. If they did give you the advice regarding those posts, I would fire them at once.
With respect to your “they have high name recognition so it wont confuse anyone…so your point is offmark” argument-this is exactly what youre going to have to prove to the judge, thats its not confusing. So my statement is not offmark just because some celebrities wear the product. I bet no federal judge has heard of it.
Also, your comment regarding nic cage v. religious icon is so incredibly stupid, illogical, and shows a complete lack of the slightest understanding regarding ip law, that it doesnt even merit a response.
Finally, if you would stop trying to sound like you knew what you were talking about, for just one second, you would have realized that i never said you would lose. i said that your case is not as strong as you think. And it isnt (considering you were relying on a copyrights case). If you want to compare the recognition of fox and tommy to teenage mill. go ahead, but dont claim you have some kind of fair use defense.
Mobi, please. Lets not act like you were not made to look like a complete retarded ass when you cited a COPYRIGHTS case to prove parody as a defense (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (510 U.S. 569)).
It was really cute how you quickly backtracked and pretended that you knew he wasnt talking copyrights, and that parody is a defense under “fair use” in trademarks (which it isnt, fair use in trademarks does NOT include parody).
first of all, i was not aware that the image was trademarked until he made the remark that the image was trademarked in his subsequent email, which is why i first cited parody in the case of copyright.
secondly, once again there is fair use and parody exemptions for trademark infringement — it is just murkier than it is in the case of copyright and has much more to do with the judge’s sense of humor than any clearly dileneated lines:
http://www.patentfla.com/artic.....parody.htm
http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/oth1/parody.htm
http://www.cll.com/articles/ar.....cleid=32#4
The case you cited to prove there is fair use in trademark, were NOT fair use cases, they were “likely to confuse” cases, same as most trademark cases.
LOL, it seems you have trouble understanding basic english. The quote is clearly saying that parodies are subject to the same criteria as everything else (i.e. whether it is confusing or not).
that’s because parody is permitted unless it’s likely to confuse! you’re the one who has problems with the english language!
“Some parodies will constitute an infringement, some will not.”
ie., some parodies are excused and some aren’t.
“But the cry of ‘parody!’ does not magically fend off otherwise legitimate claims of trademark infringement or dilution.”
thus simply claiming parody doesn’t eliminate claims of infringement. why? because:
“There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies. All they have in common is an attempt at humor through the use of someone else’s trademark. A non-infringing parody is merely amusing, not confusing.”
ie., a parody which does not confuse IS PERMITTED AND CONSTITUTES FAIR USE. my argument is that my parody does not confuse. why not? because:
a) it defies sense to presume that the same company responsible for “Jesus Is My Homeboy” would create a t-shirt reading “Jesus was a kike.”
b) “jesus is my homeboy” is one of the most popular t-shirts which sold last year. the product is distributed by a major retail chain which has millions of customers. they have sold thousands of shirts and thus have brand recognition. while a federal judge may not be familiar with the brand, you can be fairly assured that their teenage child is.
Also, your comment regarding nic cage v. religious icon is so incredibly stupid, illogical, and shows a complete lack of the slightest understanding regarding ip law, that it doesnt even merit a response.
no, actually, once again, you’re the one with the complete lack of understanding regarding IP law:
http://www.ohiobar.org/pub/lyc.....icleid=263
http://www.albert-einstein.net.....times.html
i reiterate: if jesus had an estate to represent his interests, teenage millionaire would never have been able to use his likeness for profitable purposes without, at the very least, obtaining licensing permission.
are you sure you scored 178 on your LSATs? cuz as far as i can see, you pretty much don’t know shit. either that or your ongoing vendetta against me is beclouding your clarity of thought.
PARODY ISNT A DEFENSE UNDER THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE IN TRADEMARKS. DING!!!! Why will you not just admit you were wrong and didnt know what you were talking about. Stop avoiding the point. Is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong.
“you pretty much don’t know shit. either that or your ongoing vendetta against me is beclouding your clarity of thought.”
No, nothing I said has been wrong.
First, youre an idiot for thinking that a lawyer would bring foward a copyright suit on a work of parody. You cant go around claiming to be knowledgable on a subject and keep on saying such retarded things
Also, go look up the fair use doctrine under trademarks, you will see that parody is not included, and is not similar at all to the fair use doctrine under copyrights.
[FN1] The fair use doctrine permits use of a protected trademark by others to describe certain aspects of the user’s own goods. [FN2] Where a trademark incorporates a term that is the only reasonably available means of describing a characteristic of another’s goods, the other’s use of that term in a descriptive sense is protected by the fair use doctrine. [FN3]
The fair use defense is only applicable in actions involving descriptive terms. [FN4]
[FN1]. TCPIP Holding Co., Inc. v. Haar Communications, Inc., 244 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2001).
[FN2]. EMI Catalogue Partnership v. Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc., 228 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2000).
[FN3]. EMI Catalogue Partnership v. Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos Inc., 228 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2000).
[FN4]. Sugar Busters LLC v. Brennan, 177 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 1999).
“ie., a parody which does not confuse IS PERMITTED AND CONSTITUTES FAIR USE. my argument is that my parody does not confuse ”
No stupid, this isnt unique to parody, this is the standard for ALL TRADEMARK WORK, so there is no special parody defense in trademark at all. Confusion is the standard whether it is a parody or not. You must be one pf the dumbest fucks I have ever encountered.
Now that you have been proven 100% wrong beyond all doubt will you finally stop your claims that you know what the fuck youre talking about?
There have been products parodied that have been far more famous than TM that were held to be trademark infrigement. Again, there is a good chance your product will be considered confusing.
pardon me — there is a parody defense in trademark infringement and there is a fair use defense in trademark infringement. parody is generally considered a form of fair use and is considered as such in copyright law, but in the case of trademark law is not considered to be the same type of infringement. they are, however, both legitimate defenses, but arguments of a different nature.
that would be maybe one thing you’re right about — a semantic technicality. but, that’s about it.
A “parody” is defined as a “simple form of entertainment conveyed by juxtaposing the irreverent representation of the trademark with the idealized image created by the mark’s owner.” L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 1987). A parody must “convey two simultaneous — and contradictory — messages: that it is the original, but also that it is not the original and is instead a parody.” Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publ. Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490, 494 (2d Cir. 1989) (emphasis in original). To the extent that an alleged parody conveys only the first message, “it is not only a poor parody but also vulnerable under trademark law, since the customer will be confused.” Id. While a parody necessarily must engender some initial confusion, an effective parody will diminish the risk of consumer confusion “by conveying [only] just enough of the original design to allow the consumer to appreciate the point of parody.” Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wylde, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987). source
parody not an automatic defense but a defense nonetheless
“Confusion is the standard whether it is a parody or not.”
at which point did i say otherwise?
why don’t you go back and read my first two paragraphs after he mentions that it was not just copyright infringement but trademark infringement. the initial notice i received from cafepress (i did not receive initial notice from mr. sofio) is that it was copyright infringement. i clearly approach the issue from the place of whether my parody causes confusion and at no point do i make a case otherwise except to demonstrate the utterly ridiculous nature of intellectual property claims all togher.
Wow, youre thick. Ive never seen someone so stubborn, refusing to admit theyre wrong.
First, nice backtracking. Now that you realized that fair use in trademarks does not include parody, you pretend you have been saying this the whole time. You clearly thought they were the same thing (“a parody which does not confuse IS PERMITTED AND CONSTITUTES FAIR USE”), and yet you still refuse to say you were wrong, even though we both know for a fact that parody isnt protected under fair use.
Now that i have shown you that fair use in trademarks only refer to descriptive terms, you pretend as if you knew all along that parody wasnt included in fair use defense.
Second, you clearly do not know what it means to raise a defense in a case. If you are being sued for violating a copyright, you can raise “parody” as a defense, and if it is determined to be a parody, the case will be tossed out.
If the suit is in trademarks, and you assert a “parody” defense, you will lose the case because there is no such defense. You can come up with the greatest most clever parody ever, if it will confuse people, its an infringement of trademark.
Youre so wrong so often, its amazing that you keep on asserting your position.
Quick, change your argument once again, or even better, just whine how im “out to get you”
my very first paragraph after he says it’s trademark infringement:
Parody actually does constitute a defense in the case of trademark infringement so long as there is no possibility that customers will presume that the original trademark owner is connected with or approving of the parody. In this particular case it is clear that a “wholesome Christian company” would not by any means approve of nor be in any way connected with such a product. In other words, it defies sense to presume that the same company responsible for “Jesus Is My Homeboy” would create a t-shirt reading “Jesus was a kike.”
ie., there is no chance that the customer will be confused!!!
my claim is parody — in the defense of my claim i need to prove that the parody can not be confused with the initial product. that was my very first action.
you’re the one being thick.
by the way, i did admit i was being wrong. once again, you demonstrate your inability to read the english language:
“that would be maybe one thing you’re right about — a semantic technicality. but, that’s about it.”
keep harping on it and proving consistently how big of an asshole you are. whine about you being out to get me? look how much time you’ve invested in this already. clearly you are out to get me to admit that i know nothing so you can lord your intelligence and your mighty LSAT score over me. obviously you’re a very insecure person who needs to raise himself above others in order feel good about himself. it’s really pathetic, actually, that you’d put this much time into such an endeavor, and pathetic on my part really that i’d even engage with such a disrespectful person who out of the gate is calling names and deriding me. but what the fuck… it’s always fun wiping the floor with a cocksure prick. perhaps in this case, we’re both cocksure pricks, but in the end, i’m right and i’m just a layman. you’re wrong and you’re paying out the ass to go to law school. so…the joke’s really on you, isn’t it?
“First, youre an idiot for thinking that a lawyer would bring foward a copyright suit on a work of parody.”
tell that to the author of the wind done gone:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20010430.html
you:
“a parody which does not confuse IS PERMITTED AND CONSTITUTES FAIR USE. my argument is that my parody does not confuse. why not? because”
me:
“Parody is not protected under the fair use doctrine of trademark, only descriptive works.”
You are simply dead wrong, whether you admit it or not.
If you show me anywhere that parody is protected under the fair use doctrine, as your initial and continuous assertion, i will admit i was wrong. I have never heard this before.
The lawyer was correct when he said there is no parody defense under the fair use doctrine in trademark
Here is a list of all defenses under trademark listed in amjur and alr. This list is the authoritative list. You should stop arguing and changing your story once you read it:
Defenses
DIVISIONAL REFERENCES
1. In General
s 141. GENERALLY
s 142. FAIR USE [fair use in this list include only descriptive terms)
s 143. GOOD FAITH OR INNOCENCE OF DEFENDANT
s 144. FRAUD OR MISCONDUCT OF PLAINTIFF; UNTRUTHFUL USE OF MARK OR NAME
s 145. ACQUIESCENCE OR CONSENT
s 146. MARK OR NAME HAVING BECOME PUBLICI JURIS
2. Laches
s 147. GENERALLY
s 148. EFFECT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
s 149. PROGRESSIVE ENCROACHMENT
I explained this once and you didnt listen. In copyright parody can be raised as a defense. In trademark, parody can be used, along with other evidence, to demonstrate that the work was not confusing. However, if the parody is still considered to be confusing, the case will lose. That is not what a defense is. Dont read legal material if you dont understand what youre reading. You are wrong and youre in over your head. I would let your lawyers do your talking for you.
And i have no idea why you think im out to get you. You are investing just as much time into discussing this with me as I am with you. In fact, even more, since im familiar with the subject. I am not tm’s lawyer, you have no need to do all this research to try and prove this to me.
Im not here to “get you”, I dont even know you, im just here to correct incredibly dumb assertions and statements.
Oh, i missed this one the first time:
“my claim is parody — in the defense of my claim i need to prove that the parody can not be confused with the initial product. that was my very first action. ”
hehe. there is no such thing as a claim of parody. You can claim fraud, sol, fair use, non-confusing etc. you can not claim parody.
Take your above statement, and just reverse it and you would be patially correct.
aight then..i humbly concede. mothafucka.
now here’s the thing…we have an inherently antagonistic relationship going back to our arguments on jewschool. and i realize that. but here’s how you could’ve approached the conversation: “you know mo, i think you’re a little confused on the matter. you’ve got some fair points but some of it is misguided and some of it is irrelevant, which of course, i don’t fault you for, considering you have no real legal expertise at all. anyway, while it may in the case of copyright, with trademark, parody isn’t exactly a defense. here’s why not.” imagine how much frustration and unnecessarily hateful speech could’ve been avoided if you would’ve just been nice about it instead of mean about it from the get-go and calling me a fool and a moron. and whoa…it woulda been a mitzvah too. imagine that.
you think maybe we could agree to be less snippy with one another?
LSAT, way to undermine your own credibility with ad hom attacks. Quoting your LSAT score is just about as arrogant and pleasant as giving your self the nickname “footlong”. mobius was civil towards you and chose antagonism over civility. i’m sure your legal career will go far with these tactics like that. ever stop to think that might be why the general opinion is that lawyers are assholes? most aren’t but it’s people like you who give off that malodorous stench.
LSAT, I would like to award you with the Talking Like Me When I’m Drunk and Far Too Horny Award.
Please provide your home address for delivery of the bag of flaming shit.
I mean award.
uhh, he’s a lawyer, that is numero uno. secondly, he’s a doctor of law and he’s has a right to be a little arrogant considering the fact that he probably went to school for a loooooong time.
all that considered, LSAT, you are kind of a dick, arent you?
Lsat just out of curiosity what question did you miss on the LSAT? Your a lawyer and you know your shit, ok we get it, but why be an asshole about it.
First, as anyone can plainly see, i was right all along. I have no clue why mobi kept on arguing that the sky was green, when all evidence indicated otherwise.
Second, Admittedly, my first post was harsh to mobi, but this was in response to his over the top, cocky email to the opposing attorney. Its fine to be cocky if you know what the hell youre talking about, mobi, clearly was just googling the terms trademarks and parody, and passing it off as some kind of expertise, without having read a single complete case.
Also, i ended my second post on a pretty diplomatic note, which mobi turned around and decided to insult. This is how i ended my post:
“Finally, if you would stop trying to sound like you knew what you were talking about, for just one second, you would have realized that i never said you would lose. i said that your case is not as strong as you think. And it isnt (considering you were relying on a copyrights case). If you want to compare the recognition of fox and tommy to teenage mill. go ahead, but dont claim you have some kind of fair use defense.”
And this is how mobi ended his response:
“are you sure you scored 178 on your LSATs? cuz as far as i can see, you pretty much don’t know shit. either that or your ongoing vendetta against me is beclouding your clarity of thought.”
For mobi to claim that i didnt know shit, was so laughable and absurd, that i had no choice other than to continuously make him look like an ass- which was clear to any objective reader.
Portraying me as mean, and mobi as civil, clearly has no basis in reality. This was a harsh exchange on both sides.
Realizing that he had badly lost this debate, mobi turned around with his two trustiest allies: claiming the other person is out to get him; and, once realizing defeat, turning around and trying to take the moral high ground by pretending to be civil (trying to pass himself off as being civil the whole time).
The only reason i sounded more like the bully in this exchange was because everyone noticed how mobi was having his ass handed to him, and they felt it was excessive for me to be mean, on top of that.
I feel that mobi deserved everything he got, he was being cocky, arrogant and condescending, whe he didnt have a clue what he was talking about.
Completely clueless people who act like this, especially publicly, deserve everything they get.
Suggestions for new shirts:
“Chris Hoy is a _____”
A. douchebag
B. sellout
C. asshat
D. homeboy of Jesus
If anyone who reads this lives in LA, Chris Hoy and Dougie Williams have a class at the “Learning Annex” , to teach you how to sell(out) shirts to become (sic) teenage millionaires.
Is it worth $60 to show up at one of their seminars with a “Jesus was a kike” shirt.
I think so
LSAT 178 this is the second forum on which people noticed you are acting arrogantly. i am pretty sure most of these people are not the commentors on jewschool. maybe that says something?
Jew….Christian…who cares?
The fact is, you’re all a bunch of fruitcakes for believing that it actually matters. Jesus or the tooth fairy — is there a difference? Why not going around worshipping the sun, or a volcano, or my dirty freaking sock?
The problem with you idiots first and foremost is that you claim to be intellectual but at the same time your first love is religion.
Talk about an oxymoron.
So, to sum, fuck Jesus, fuck the Jews and fuck the Tooth Fairy.
xoxo
Karl
oh karl — you’re such a self-hating jew. your treatise on “the jewish question” is one of the most vile antisemitic doctrines known to man. but when can you expect from a pure socialist who vested authority in the power of the state. baruch hashem i’m a social libertarian, which means i respect people’s right to believe in god. and if you knew shit about your own people’s history, karl, you’d know that your positions on socialism all evolve out of the values of your people which extend forth from the torah which demands tzedakah (charity), communal responsibility, and respect for human rights — all of which are things that jesus believed in and preached as well.
oh, and there’s just one more thing about opium, karl. it gets you high. socialist economics historiclaly speaking? it gets you thrown in the gulag or mass-murdered.
oh shapap.
Thanks for the link to “Satan Is My Homeboy” t-shirt. I bought one for my favourite busboy/busgirl/dontknowthepoliticallycorrecttermforafemalebusboy. And *sigh* it was a lot more than $28 once I factored in shipping. But it’ll be nice to see her wearing that instead of the annoying “JIMH” tee.
lsat 178 and mo, why waste time spewing venom at each other when you could you really make an impact by going after these psuedo intellectual assholes here:
http://www.rightnation.us
The one I especially hate is the blogger who refers to himself as Mike of Austin, a smug son of a bitch.
I recommend eveyone drop by and leave something.
lsat 178 and mo, why waste time spewing venom at each other when you could you really make an impact by going after these psuedo intellectual assholes here:
http://www.rightnation.us
The one I especially hate is the blogger who refers to himself as Mike of Austin, a smug son of a bitch.
I recommend eveyone drop by and leave something.
Hahah…
This whole legal exchange is pretty funny.
But all of the legal arguments take us away from one of the main issues: why do companies choose to take legal action towards individuals or organizations for IP infringement that will obviously bring no harm to them?
Is it because they are generally assholes and not sensitive to the fact that people want to express themselves?
OR – do they risk not being able to persecute real threats to their trademark/copyright if they do not actively persecute them all – and risk having their IP rights taken away from them as ‘abandoned’?
One last question, if LSAT can’t keep his shit together posting to some stupid website, how is he going to act in front of an opposing lawyer or jury?
“Completely clueless people who act like this, especially publicly, deserve everything they get.”
No matter how good his legal arguments, most juries would hear arguments and closing statements like that and conclude that his opposition is innocent by virtue of being the lesser of two assholes.
http://www.teetastic.com/johnny.html
boston red sox centerfielder and jesus lookalike
this site also sold a “jesus is my poolboy” shirt until teenage millionaires found their site as well, fucking bastards
see above. http://www.cafepress.com/teetastic/309372
see above. http://www.cafepress.com/teetastic/309372
I am curious as to what damages they can sue you for…It is doubtful that the person purchasing either shirt considerd buying the other. So, even if you sold 1000 shirts I’m guessing you didn’t steal any sales from teenagemillionaire.
Ah, parody so simple and yet so hard to comprehend.
Dude. You absolutely ripped off the design. Pardody is ok, but stealing trademarked images is not. I’d say about 50% of your design is copied exactly from the Teenage Millionaires shirt.
And while Joe Sofio shut me down (without legal grounds, in my opinion) on cafepress for
Jesus is my Poolboy: http://www.cafepress.com/teeta...
I haven’t heard a peep out of him from my sales at:
Johnny is my Homeboy: http://www.teetastic.com/johnn...
My advice:
A) Make an all new original design. It can be a parody and look just like Teenage Millionaire’s, but don’t use any stolen imagery.
B) Sell it in a forum where you have complete control over inventory. CafePress is only interested in covering their own asses. Get your stuff printed, use a paypal shopping cart, and ship the stuff yourself. That way, you’re responsible for censoring yourself, not someone else. (Note: ebay can censor you just like CafePress, so it’s best just to have your own sales mechanism)
C) If it’s successful, get it trademarked at uspto.gov. ‘Trump is my Homeboy’ passed the test, my ‘Johnny is my Homeboy’ is pending. So next time Sofio tries to commit perjury and send you a cease and desist letter when he knows it won’t hold up in court, you can call him on it and sue his ass back.
-Tim
David Duke is My “Homeboy”!
Just Kidding!—Or am I!
UPDATE:
Sign up for SPREADHIRT
Spreadshirt is a print-on-demand service that allows you to take responsibility for your own ideas.
My Johnny Shirts are still selling:
Johnny is my Homeboy (Spreadshirt)
Johnny is my Homeboy (Original)
and Jes?s is my Poolboy is Back!
Jes?s is my Poolboy (Spreadshirt)
Prices are still high but it’s really a pretty awesome service.
sorry, those links are a little broken
just go to http://teetastic.spreadshirt.c...
Why can’t you just come up with your own original idea and this would not be an issue. Since “Jesus is my Homeboy” shirts came out everyone has been jumping on the band wagon trying to make money off of the image. If you didn’t make any money ($36) then why don’t you just let it go! You are sure taking a holier than thou approach to this whole this.
This shirt was not inspired by the “Passion of Christ” movie. It was developed long before the movie came out. Why don’t you get off of your soap box and move on!!
Fuck it all.
If someone thinks that shit is funny, then thats their opinion.
If people want to make funny shirts…..
Let them.
People Want, People Sell, People Buy, People Profit.
Screw your religious bullshit…. if the shirt didnt have jesus on it and had some other catchy shit, it would still be copied.
how many parodies of ” keep staring at me i might do a tricK”
t-shirts do you see?
or the kiss me im ________ irish mexican british etc.