Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
A Rodenticide By Any Other Name
A Chinese pharmaceutical company wants to tag its line of rat poisons "Zheng Xiaoyu," which also happens to be the name of the former director of the State Food and Drug Administration. But China's trademark czars aren't having it:
China's Xinhua news agency said that the national trademark administrator had rejected the application.
"It is against China's trademark laws to use a name that has adverse effects on society as a trademark," the agency quoted official sources as saying.
VM|3.9.07 @ 10:02AM|#
this is the same ruling, per my understanding, why the Ford Eczema project didn't get any traction...
|3.9.07 @ 10:04AM|#
To be fair, the US has something similar. Trademarks can't be offensive or something (anybody a Lanham Act expert?). A few years back somebody sued the Washington Redskins and won at the trial or appellate level (can't remember). Harjo vs. NFL I think?
Dan T.|3.9.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Shouldn't the libertarian viewpoint be that government trademark protection should be done away with altogether? It's a restriction of free speech.
|3.9.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Dan T.: that might be the position of the Libertarian Party or other libertarians completely opposed to practicality.
|3.9.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Dan T.,
Restricting the usage of trademarks make sense in the same contexts
as restricting the use of reproductions of a person's signature and
like a signature the idea of a trademark exists independent of
legal restrictions on its usage. Hence, the usage of a trademark to
indicate the producer or endorser of a product should be restricted
to the progenator of the trademark and usage in other contexts
should be unrestricted - registration should be looked at as a
convienience for resolving legal disputes over whose trademark it
is. Government restrictions on what can be registered as a
trademark should only serve the purpose of assuring that trademarks
can be distinguished from each other.
|3.9.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Trademark law seems to be just a very specific kind of fraud
law. You have the obvious kind; someone uses your logo to sell
their product to consumers who think they are getting the real
deal. But then there is the business of certifications. I maintain
a website for my father-in-law who owns a lumber mill. He pays an
organization to grade his lumber, and uses their logo on his site
and milled products. He also pays an organization to certify the
origin of his raw material, that is, that it is from well managed
forests using ecologically friendly practices. He uses their logo
on the milled products as well as advertisements like the
website.
In the second case infringement of the trademark is almost
theft. It's not as if they have stolen the services of
certification, but they have diminished the future value of the
product itself. I guess this also might apply to the first case if
the imitation is an inferior product.
|3.9.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Trademark used to be designed to avoid fraud and confusion as to the origin of products. Nowadays trademarks are protected like any property right - the big wallet always wins.
Dan T.|3.9.07 @ 11:22AM|#
The thing is, the idea of "intellectual property" is entirely
based on the use of government force to restrict freedom of
speech.
Unlike actual physical property, ideas cannot be "owned" or
"stolen". They're abstract.
The real irony is that taxes are taken from me by the government in
part to prevent me from, say, starting my own magazine called
Reason - even though the First Amendment says that I have
freedom of speech and should therefore be able to pubish anything I
want.
Sounds like welfare, doesn't it? The government takes from me to
protect the value of ideas "owned" by others.
|3.9.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Dan T.:
Looks like you're suffering from the same "lack of all
practicality" disease that affects the LP. Think about how your
plan would actually work. It would be a world full of cheap shit
and duped customers.
Dan T.|3.9.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Dan T.:
Looks like you're suffering from the same "lack of all
practicality" disease that affects the LP. Think about how your
plan would actually work. It would be a world full of cheap shit
and duped customers.
I know - I'm playing devil's advocate here for the most part. In
fact, the libertarian philosophy has always struck me as one that's
very attractive in theory but pretty impractical in reality.
But to be honest I just think it's fun to argue about ideas.
|3.9.07 @ 11:41AM|#
Gotcha. With the Democrats cobbling together their views of big government, and the Republicans holding steady as the party of God, there needs to be a party of libertarian ideas. I'm not talking about the LP, which is more like a think-tank than a party. I'm talking about candidates drawn from right and left whose common ground is their underlying philosophy. The problem with the LP is that their philosophy isn't "underlying" anything, it's their platform. That's cool, but unelectable and, frankly, not reasonable in my book.
|3.9.07 @ 12:56PM|#
So, am I cool to go ahead with my "Dan T. Hemorrhoid
Cream"?
Stevo, that's perfect branding, considering what a pain in the ass
he is.
|3.9.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Dan T.,
Your point is relevant to copyrights, but it doesn't really hold up
on trademarks. You probably could start a magazine called Reason if
you wanted to without running afoul of even the less than ideal
trademark laws in existence as long as it didn't ape the logo
design in such a way that somebody wanting to buy the other Reason
magazine would be likely to confuse yours with it.
|3.9.07 @ 1:09PM|#
I think this area of law is pretty confusing. E.g. Delta Airlines couldn't win against Delta Faucets, because, the legal standard, as far as I can understand is "you wouldn't confuse the two," but if you named swomething Coca-Cola Tire and Battery, that Coca Cola would probably win against you.
|3.9.07 @ 1:37PM|#
MattXIV: You are sort of right. About the one thing he couldn't start is a magazine called Reason. Everything else is technically fair game for a product or service called Reason. Increasingly, however, companies are able to argue that the other guys use of the mark takes away a market they were planning to go into. So, let's say that I want to market The Reason Crew action figures. I'm going to write a comic book, have the dolls made, and advertise. Reason the Magazine could stop me from doing that if they could prove that they were going to enter the market with their own "The Reason Crew" action figures. It wouldn't matter that my action figures would be fat dorks with coffee stains where they might pee their pants, and the Magazine's action figures are for Catalonian porn role play. There is also the issue of diluting another's trademark. This means that even if somebody doesn't confuse your product for mine, if your product has a similar name and it makes my product look bad, I can stop you. Ultimately, I see it as the most expensive lawyers win.
|3.9.07 @ 4:24PM|#
The US has something similar--can't use the name or likeness of
a living person without getting permission from that
individual.
(There was a very funny rejection from the Trademark office some
time badk--some guy wanted to register an image which was a
caricature of John Kerry dressed as Osama Bin Laden and labeled as
such. Trademark office rejected it, pointing out that the applicant
didn't have signed permission from the individuals involved.
Commentator pointed out that even if Kerry signed off on this,
getting Osama's signature might be a wee bit difficult.....)
|3.9.07 @ 4:54PM|#
...for a product or service called Reason...
Does everyone have to drink if the rule is fulfilled through
selective quoting?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245