The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Trojan Doctrine: Trademarks and the Law of the Horse
I was just reminded of this short article of mine (published at 8 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 259 (2003)), and I thought I’d repost it here.
Trademark law desperately needs the Trojan Doctrine. Rather than defining the doctrine, I begin with an illustration. Magellan's Travel (former slogan: "Safe Travel Begins at Magellan's") specializes in books and equipment for travelers. Magellan was a famous explorer, so on the surface the trademark makes perfect sense. Many people, when asked who Magellan was, will say that he was the first person to circumnavigate the globe.
In fact, Magellan never circumnavigated the globe, but was killed half-way across, in the Philippines. The whole voyage also managed to do in 250 out of 270 members of Magellan's crew, apparently also the likely fate of those who shop at Magellan Travel, especially if they are carrying Amelia Earhart Luggage.
The Trojan Doctrine, I suggest, should invalidate trademarks if consumers—had they only thought hard about the phrase—wouldn't dream of buying a product with such an inapt name. One might think of this as a sort of doctrine of "tertiary meaning." I don't know what precisely is harmful about such trademarks, but surely there must be something.
Consider Rembrandt Toothpaste, which supposedly whitens teeth. Sparkling teeth are good, and Rembrandt van Rijn is good. And yet Rembrandt's paintings are mostly done in deep, dark colors. The subjects almost never show their teeth, for reasons familiar to those who know Renaissance hygiene. Are the Rembrandt Toothpaste people sending us a hidden message about the efficacy of their product? Are they trying to spread artistic illiteracy? There ought to be a law.
Other examples [including Trojan] abound.
I foolishly bought a Random House Unabridged Dictionary before thinking the matter through more deeply. On reflection, I realize that randomness is the quality I least want in a dictionary—or in a house—either in the sequence of the entries or their content. I would much prefer a Well-Organized House Unabridged Dictionary. Falsely misled, I have been irreparably harmed. I was even tempted to drive a Mitsubishi Mirage or a Chevy Nova, until I recognized that I should instead get a car that is real and doesn't explode.
But as defective trademarks go, these are nothing compared to the mark that gives the Trojan Doctrine its name. When you think of Trojan, what do you first think of? Some say the war. Some say the USC football team. (By the way, why does USC name its football team after the losers?)
Some say the condoms, to which we will return shortly. But surely the most significant Trojan of all is the Trojan horse, the Trojan term that has even made its way into the English language itself. (It can be found immediately between "zither" and "stymie" in my Random House.)
So let us think about Trojan condoms through the deconstructive lens of our equine friend. Here, in brief, is the story of the Trojan horse. Troy withstood the Greeks' siege for years, managing to keep the invaders outside its portals. But in a moment of weakness, seduced by the Greeks' deception, Troy opened its gates and let in a large horse. From this horse, in the middle of the night, lots of little men flooded out and destroyed the city.
A fine name for a condom.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm reminded of all those morons at Reagan rallies singing "Born in the USA!!"
Spy Magazine, many years back, had a fake news brief: "Springsteen, annoyed that his fans don't understand him, releases new album 'America, I Hate It.'"
That was Bruce Springsteen's own doing, and he's never really owned up to it.
He participated in TONS of flag-waving to promote that album and song. The album cover is him in a pair of blue jeans against an American flag. And, of course, he changed the song to make it sound like a patriotic anthem, and growled the lyrics so they were hard to understand.
And all that made him many millions of dollars.
Then he had the audacity to whine that people thought his song was a patriotic anthem. That was a result of his own damned choices.
Off topic.
Thank you for this post! Needed a good chuckle this morning.
Always good to see this again. Somewhat related, I used to keep a list of legal treatises that give an impression that they are for something their authors are actually against. I remember one late night in the law firm library, back when they had big print libraries, with a label-maker pulling out a volume entitled Oppression of Minority Shareholders, which the author was very much against, and adding as a subtitle "A Practical Guide."
Makes me think of the possible meanings of "sexual harassment training."
Many years ago, my former officemate told me "You already know how to do that."
And my wife has taken domestic violence training, so I have to toe the line.
I don't know what precisely is harmful about such trademarks, but surely there must be something.
Don't trademarks, like copyrights, in principle implicate the first amendment? In general they are a regulation of speech, but a justified one. So if there's a category of trademarks or copyrights that is not justified, they'd be unconstitutional.
(In the case of copyrights that would arguably also be because copyrights that don't promote the arts are ultra vires Art. I(8) of the US Constitution. But the Lanham Act is based on the interstate commerce clause, so that can't be it.)
Trademarks are a regulation of commercial speech. While commercial speech is protected by the 1A, it is entitled to a much lower level of protection.
I mean, you've basically just described the fair use doctrine. (There's one for both trademark and copyright.)
Or, rather, there's one for each of trademark and copyright.
Matal v. Tam confirms that.
Prof. Volokh is, of course, joking.
Another example is the Aspire—a mid-1990's subcompact car manufactured in Korea, imported by and sold as a Ford. It did not represent the acme of 20th century automotive design and manufacturing (at least, in other than a Wile E. Coyote sense).
I always thought name was because it had aspirations of being a real car.
"I always thought name was because it had aspirations of being a real car."
More like delusions. 🙂
Yes...the Delusion! A much more fitting name of a mid-90's Kia with a Ford nameplate.
A man I worked with, who was in the meeting, used to tell us about how the Sears Marketing people reacted negatively (and almost violently), when the agency first suggested the name "Die Hard" for their new line of premium auto batteries.
The problem with the Nova isn't that it explodes. It's that it doesn't go ("no va").
I'd heard that argument, though I've also heard that actual Spanish speakers aren't too troubled by that, among other things because "Nova" is both spelled and pronounced differently from "no va"; see this Snopes item.
But that's as to the serious argument; as to the jocular version, it might work well for a Spanish-language version of my article. I instead focused on the English meaning, which is an exploding star. (Of course, no-one would actually draw that connection, but that's part of the joke.)
If you remember, Sav-On Drugs here in Southern California changed its name to "Osco" for a few years, then changed it back. "Asco", in Spanish, pronounced the same, means gross or offensive.
"There ought to be a law."
...that makes it legal to shoot people who say "there ought to be a law".
We have too damn many laws already.
Used to be a comic strip by that name.
The valiant but defeated warrior is a frequently admired hero. Rome's founding myth does not involve Achilles, Agamemnon or Odysseus, all on the winning side, but rather the Trojan prince Aeneas, a loser.
Yes, this is very much part of Western culture: Thermopylae, Lexington, the Alamo, the list goes on--all battles where the "good guys" lost.
Yes, but how many lost because they were gullible?
Yeah, weird that they'd focus on the guy who actually was involved with Rome instead of sailing back home to Greece. Loser. 🙂
Actually Magellan did travel far more than half-way across the globe: prior to his circum-navigation trip, he had already been to Southeast Asia (Malacca, 102.25 degrees East), so that in reality he only missed the bit between 102.25ºE and Mactan 124ºE, so that he did not complete half a circum-navigation, but almost 94% of the full circum-navigation.
Actually, one of his crew was from the general area of the Philippines where Magellan died, and he jumped ship and went home, being the actual first person to circumnavigate the globe.
I had meant to include that tidbit, but when writing my response I learnt that it is actually not known for sure whether Henrique de Malacca (Magellan's slave, supposedly born in Sumatra) did succeed in returning to his home after leaving ship in Mactan.
Huh, I was taught in school he had been as far east before as he made it west on his final trip. Guess my school textbooks (or teacher) needed some fact checking.
On the flip side, the USPTO trademark examiner really can’t file a Merely Descriptive rejection. Indeed, the counterintuitive nature of these marks would seem to bolster the argument for their fancifulness and ease at uniquely identifying a good or service.
Is this post serious or satire? Hard to tell.
Odd -- I thought it was pretty clearly mildly absurdist humor (not quite satire, I think, but certainly not serious).
I think it hits exactly the right note where you aren't really sure if the author is being serious until you get to the very end (at which point it's clear and very funny). I thought it was excellently done but I can't deny that I've developed the bad habit of trying to put an article into a box after the first two paragraphs thanks to the last decade of the internet.
The best part of satire is that if you do it right, it could be plausible. The elements of this post are more than plausible lol. they could even be possible. it was well done.
Volokh's interpretation of the 1A is sadistic and cruel. The guy has no empathy and doesn't understand the nature of internet communication. The 1A was never meant to be used as a weapon to harm private individuals.
Under Eugene Volokh’s asinine interpretation of the First Amendment, there would be NO such thing as cyberstalking or cyber-harassment! These crimes would simply not exist in his world. Because these actions are performed with words, Eugene would have the 1A apply to anything that involves words (or by extension, pixels). No course of conduct that involves typing words on a screen would be subject to any civil or criminal liability regardless of content, form, or intention. This mean in Eugene’s warped world, revenge porn, doxing, public disclosure of private fact, privacy violations, even swatting would be perfectly legal, and even encouraged!
Ludicrously, he argues that these malicious acts are actually “valuable” because they provide value to “at least some people.” That’s a BS argument, because anyone can argue that say doxing material provides value to “someone” – yeah, the doxers and the criminals doing the harassment of course! A person’s credit card can be posted and it would provide value to someone, the thieves. A person’s revenge porn pictures can be posted and it would be obviously valuable to countless shady people on the internet. Eugene’s 1A internet speech test is: as long as the information posted is “of value” to someone, that content doesn’t qualify as harassment! This insanely warped logic is beyond asinine that I wonder how Eugene can say this with a straight face. There is no discussion at all from him on the rights of the victims and their constitutional right to be free from malicious harassment (4th Amendment). Eugene Volokh is borderline sadist who just wants to see people’s lives get wrecked and he takes enjoyment in seeing victims suffer.
No civilized society would just let victims take the brunt of harassment while online criminals can get away by hiding behind a warped definition of the First Amendment. If the constitution says “Congress shall make no law” then maybe the 1A needs a new interpretation in the age of the internet! Because the current approach is leading to very bad social results and instability when people can just say whatever they want online with no liability. Volokh is insane.
Probably didn't get past the last ad jump...to your short final line hidden between to two big graphics blocks.
This one made me laugh. Perhaps trademark applicants should pass their applications through a "board of ridicule" before submission to USPTO. But if they did, where would we get such fun stories?
lmao.
I would agree with this post except its written in a language with almost a hundred contronyms (words that are their own opposite, depending on context). Seems appropriate that trademarks should also be contronyms. Very often, products fail to like up to marketing. The worst become memes.
"why does USC name its football team after the losers?"
I would guess Virgil had something to do with that - if you think that the Trojans are ancestors of the Romans, then adopting their name in a sense means backing a winner.
Hey, I was wrong!
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2020-09-18/how-usc-got-nickname-trojans
When they came up with the name, team was a scrappy underdog - and I suppose you could call the Trojans the same thing.
I understand they're not a scrappy underdog - or any kind of underdog - today.
There are also the Michigan State Spartans.
And the Cleveland Indians. Wait ... what now?
The Spartans' mascot is a disabled infant abandoned in the wilderness to die.
Some years ago, Quaker Oats considered changing their logo to an image of Popeye the Sailor-Man, who is best-known for eating spinach, which makes him super-strong, and then beating the crap out of his opponent(s). The cartoon imagery often includes weapons of war which were new at the time - Popeye's fists morph into the muzzles of heavy machine-guns or whatever.
The actual Quakers, who oppose violence, were very angry, and filed a big lawsuit. I don't remember the details, but in the end Quaker Oats backed down.