3 ms·

Trademarks must be aggressively defended if you want to keep them. The South Butt logo is very similar to The North Face logo. The design is almost identical

by Goladus 17y ago

Trademarks must be aggressively defended if you want to keep them. The South Butt logo is very similar to The North Face logo. The design is almost identical except the curves are upside down and one is missing. This is hilarious. But, it's not subtle at all and it would be easy to assume clothes bearing that logo are actually a North Face brand. On the other hand, I probably never would have heard of South Butt if it weren't for the lawsuit.

mootothemax 17y ago
Heh, I wonder if trademark lawyers are ever tempted to claim confusion on grounds like: "Yes sir, the average man on the street might think we suddenly developed a sense of humour and then be confused when he learned that this was not the case!"
grannyg00se 17y ago
"it would be easy to assume clothes bearing that logo are actually a North Face brand" Except one says "The North Face" and the other says "The South Butt". How can these be confused? Are the names beside the logo and the logo itself separate? If so, perhaps he should simply be made to change the logo. I would suggest more detail on the curves so they actually look more like a sitting butt. However, I think the logos are sufficiently different as they are.
henrikschroder 17y ago
What does "aggressively" mean? And who judges if you've been "aggressively" defending your trademark? In this case it's pretty obvious that the best thing North Face could have done was to completely ignore South Butt, because their actions have only led to South Butt selling more of their stuff. It's a perfect example of the Streisand effect. Shouldn't that amount to something if they later have to defend their North Face trademark?
- potatolicious 17y ago
  "And who judges if you've been "aggressively" defending your trademark?" Presumably, the judge. "It's a perfect example of the Streisand effect." A very, very temporary Streisand effect, yes. If North Face is at all confident about winning this suit, then South Butt will have to shut down - you're granting them a brief bit of revenue (which you can later sue them for too!) in exchange for their permanent death. "Shouldn't that amount to something if they later have to defend their North Face trademark?" Trademarks don't work that way. "We inadvertently publicized this infringing trademark while we were suing them" is not grounds for losing your own trademark.
- Goladus 17y ago
  You should probably ask a lawyer, but as I understand as a layman if it can be demonstrated that you knew about an infringing trademark but ignored it, it is a lot harder to win a lawsuit. I think the basic idea is that trademark rights are valid for as long as you need them, however you lose those rights if you abandon the mark. I think that ignoring infringement is a piece of evidence that the mark is not useful for you anymore. It may not be absolutely critical, but certainly doesn't help. Suppose some other company markets the brand "The Fourth Ace" using the South Butt logo, and they get successful and start stealing business. The North Face sues them, but have trouble in the case because North Place points out that their logo is a variation on South Butt, which doesn't seem to bother them.
  - btilly 17y ago
    The correct solution in this situation is to contact South Butt, and offer them a license for a nominal amount. Now presto "The Fourth Ace" issue stops being an issue because you raised the issue with South Butt and made them get a valid license.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  And can you just give them a free license?
cabalamat 17y ago
> it would be easy to assume clothes bearing that logo are actually a North Face brand I really, really doubt it. If you believe that, you'd presumably also believe Spinal Tap were real rock group, that Spitting Image was real, and that The Onion is real newspaper.
- Goladus 17y ago
  Trademarks might be expected to get a few seconds of attention at a given moment, much of it subconscious visual processing. In the 5-10 minutes it takes to read an Onion article, almost all people will observe something not right and be motivated to decide whether it's a fake story or not. In the 1 second it takes to observe a trademark on a piece of clothing, most people will not have the motivation to decide whether it's a fake or not. And even then, the trademarks are still very similar. Even a person looking at them side-by-side can reasonably suggest that the South Butt logo is a humorous sub-brand that comes from The North Face. Often, with Onion articles, you can point to some fact that contradicts fundamental scientific laws and therefore cannot possibly be a true story. Spinal Tap is technically a real band, and while the story told in the movie is fake it is still plausible. I would not be surprised at all if someone saw out-of-context clips of This Is Spinal Tap without knowing what it was, and assumed it was a real documentary.

by Goladus 17y ago

mootothemax 17y ago

Heh, I wonder if trademark lawyers are ever tempted to claim confusion on grounds like: "Yes sir, the average man on the street might think we suddenly developed a sense of humour and then be confused when he learned that this was not the case!"

grannyg00se 17y ago

"it would be easy to assume clothes bearing that logo are actually a North Face brand" Except one says "The North Face" and the other says "The South Butt". How can these be confused? Are the names beside the logo and the logo itself separate? If so, perhaps he should simply be made to change the logo. I would suggest more detail on the curves so they actually look more like a sitting butt. However, I think the logos are sufficiently different as they are.

henrikschroder 17y ago

What does "aggressively" mean? And who judges if you've been "aggressively" defending your trademark? In this case it's pretty obvious that the best thing North Face could have done was to completely ignore South Butt, because their actions have only led to South Butt selling more of their stuff. It's a perfect example of the Streisand effect. Shouldn't that amount to something if they later have to defend their North Face trademark?

potatolicious 17y ago
"And who judges if you've been "aggressively" defending your trademark?" Presumably, the judge. "It's a perfect example of the Streisand effect." A very, very temporary Streisand effect, yes. If North Face is at all confident about winning this suit, then South Butt will have to shut down - you're granting them a brief bit of revenue (which you can later sue them for too!) in exchange for their permanent death. "Shouldn't that amount to something if they later have to defend their North Face trademark?" Trademarks don't work that way. "We inadvertently publicized this infringing trademark while we were suing them" is not grounds for losing your own trademark.
Goladus 17y ago
You should probably ask a lawyer, but as I understand as a layman if it can be demonstrated that you knew about an infringing trademark but ignored it, it is a lot harder to win a lawsuit. I think the basic idea is that trademark rights are valid for as long as you need them, however you lose those rights if you abandon the mark. I think that ignoring infringement is a piece of evidence that the mark is not useful for you anymore. It may not be absolutely critical, but certainly doesn't help. Suppose some other company markets the brand "The Fourth Ace" using the South Butt logo, and they get successful and start stealing business. The North Face sues them, but have trouble in the case because North Place points out that their logo is a variation on South Butt, which doesn't seem to bother them.
- btilly 17y ago
  The correct solution in this situation is to contact South Butt, and offer them a license for a nominal amount. Now presto "The Fourth Ace" issue stops being an issue because you raised the issue with South Butt and made them get a valid license.
lallysingh 17y ago
And can you just give them a free license?

cabalamat 17y ago

> it would be easy to assume clothes bearing that logo are actually a North Face brand I really, really doubt it. If you believe that, you'd presumably also believe Spinal Tap were real rock group, that Spitting Image was real, and that The Onion is real newspaper.

Goladus 17y ago
Trademarks might be expected to get a few seconds of attention at a given moment, much of it subconscious visual processing. In the 5-10 minutes it takes to read an Onion article, almost all people will observe something not right and be motivated to decide whether it's a fake story or not. In the 1 second it takes to observe a trademark on a piece of clothing, most people will not have the motivation to decide whether it's a fake or not. And even then, the trademarks are still very similar. Even a person looking at them side-by-side can reasonably suggest that the South Butt logo is a humorous sub-brand that comes from The North Face. Often, with Onion articles, you can point to some fact that contradicts fundamental scientific laws and therefore cannot possibly be a true story. Spinal Tap is technically a real band, and while the story told in the movie is fake it is still plausible. I would not be surprised at all if someone saw out-of-context clips of This Is Spinal Tap without knowing what it was, and assumed it was a real documentary.