How to Respond to Cease and Desist Orders from Trademark Owners
(left, the T-shirt at issue)
We talk a lot about the resolution of IP litigation here, but not a lot about IP conflict prevention. I've long said that the best insurance against liability is good relationships. The New York Times Magazine today (in its terrific "Consumed" column by writer Rob Walker - author of Buying In) demonstrates the way in which responsible and respectful action following a trademark infringement claim can lead to a happy collaborative resolution.
In Boxers, Not Briefs, Walker tells the story of journalist and entrepreneur Chris Isenberg's No Mas brand T-shirts -- T-shirts of the type that
visually remix intellectual property that belongs to somebody else - tweaking or parodying recognizable logos and the like . . . [which often] draw cease-and-desist letters from trademark owners.
CKX, Inc., "the company that . . . oversees the rights to commercial uses" of Mohammed Ali's name and likeness, sent Isenberg an e-mail of the type with which we lawyers are familiar, one that Walker describes as usually ending unhappily "with the small-brand creator stymied, the rights owner accused of bullying or both."
This story, however, had a happy ending because everyone - not just the big company so often accused of bullying - but Isenberg too - acted honorably. Walker explains:
[Isenberg's] response was unusual: Not only would he pull the shirts off the shelves; he would also give an accounting of what he already sold over the years and offer a retroactive royalty payment.
The response of CKX was equally admirable - its CEO noting that Isenberg "seemed like an honorable guy" and that his product was high quality. The upshot?
The Cassius Clay shirt returns to Bloomingdale's, the No Mas site and other venues, in the new officially sanctioned version, this month.
Note CKX's caution that it is "not in the habit of going into business with license violators." Why the exception? I think Walker's readers can connect the dots themselves. For readers of the IP ADR Blog, the lesson goes a little deeper.
Conflict, you'll recall, is a neutral state of affairs existing in a world of scarce resources. Conflict does not erupt into a dispute until someone suffers an injury that appears to be someone else's fault, i.e., the injured party names a perpetrator, blames him for losses suffered, and makes a claim for redress. Here, CKX, which describes itself has having a "vibrant policing organization," named No Mas as an infringer of its rights, "blamed" it for the losses typically suffered when trademarks are infringed and claimed a right to redress.
This, of course, is how all disputes and all lawsuits begin. No surprises here. What makes the CKX-No Mas story one worth telling is the surprising choice Isenberg made when the dispute erupted.
The parties to a dispute have three major paths to resolution: yielding or avoiding; contending (ingratiation and gamesmanship; threats, promises and arguments; and coercive commitments or violence); or, problem solving. Litigation, of course, is all contending and contending is worrisome, expensive, lengthy, and uncertain. Though businesses choose contending and legal action when the fish is too small to fry (we don't do business with license violators) or the opposition intractable, the best businesses choose problem solving whenever they have a reputable and wiling bargaining partner.
Below, the short course on the way conflict erupts into disputes (actionable or not) and the pro's and con's of available responses.
