I'd Like to Trademark that Triangle Now: the Urge to Possess Continues to Possess Us
(right: the triangle, on sale now at the IP ADR Blog)
Aggressive fighting wins human cock-fights and aggressive marketing corners the market in geometric shapes.
The urge to possess and monetize just about everything continues to possess us. And we at the IP ADR Blog wonder whether that's a good thing, or even an efficient or profitable one.
If you want your new sport (a brutal human cock-fight) to grow into the new American pass-time, for instance, does it really make any sense to prevent others from staging similar fights in an octagonal "ring" just because you used that shape first (or marketed it more fiercely than others)?
Are we gearing up for a playground revolution with trademarked four-square courts and copyrighted hop scotch squares?
We don't criticize the legal reasoning of the decision reported by the WSJ Law Blog today -- an opinion penned by our own federal court Judge Dean D. Pregerson -- that the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) could lawfully prevent other promoters from staging similar fights within an octagonal "ring."
We do, however continue to question what seems to have become an absolutely frenzied mania to take possession of -- and monetize -- just about everything.
I'd give this entire topic more thought, but need to finish packing for our upcoming Hawaiian vacation -- where no one is trademarking the scent of the ocean or the curve of the white sand beach or the waves that seem to hesitate just a moment before breaking, as if they might decide to pause there for a last cigarette.
With those images in mind, I give you the the law on geometric shapes as reported by WSJ Law Blog Today: Octagon -- Trademark of the Ultimate Fighting Championship excerpted here and linked below:
UFC’s owner received a trademark on the octagon-shaped fighting mat back in 1998, and the court ruled UFC established common law rights on the eight-sided fence as well.
Last year, UFC filed a suit against [a competitor's] company after he refused to pay $2,500 a year for a license to use the octagonal fence and mat. Meacham, 39 years old, claimed octagonal fences and mats are generic to the sport and told the Law Blog that he fought in eight-sided rings long before the creation of the UFC in 1993.
In last month’s ruling, Judge Dean D. Pregerson in Los Angeles cited the aggressive promotion of the octagon mat and ring in ruling that “there was persuasive evidence that the marketplace associates the UFC with the octagon,” leading to a likelihood “the consuming public” might confuse Meacham’s company with UFC. A jury trial will take place as early as this fall to assess damages.
Meacham . . . says the decision is tantamount to “telling some boxers they can’t box in a four-sided ring.” The court disagreed, saying promoters of mixed martial arts use rings and mats of various shapes and that the sport, unlike baseball and basketball, has no regulation size for its “playing field.”
J. Bennett Clark, an intellectual property partner at Bryan Cave in St. Louis, says the decison “comes close to providing overly broad protection for such a basic geometric shape.” That said, it’s not an outlier. . . .
I thought this would provide a nice counterpoint to your post. A piece of the past:
http://westallen.typepad.com/idealawg/2007/08/past-and-the-fu.html
I wish you a grand vacation, Vickie!
Thanks Stephanie -- to encourage my readers to take a look at the referenced post, here's just part of it:
"Wu believes the copyright tension in the next few years will be between control (making money off content) and exposure. Several questions will be answered in the near future. How do you preserve openness yet cash in at some magic moment? How will people creating content make money? He thinks people will figure out a way."
Gee, that's just what we were thinking!