8 ms·
IMAX apologizes to Ars for its trademark retraction demand
- hyperbovine 11y agoI guess you would call this "Destreisanding".
- serve_yay 11y agoDinguses.
- JadeNB 11y agoThis seems like a possibly appropriate, but almost certainly non-constructive, response to the original demand, but useless in this thread; I have downvoted it. Granted that they made a mistake in their original aggression, this seems like the best possible next step to take.
- tux3 11y agoProps to them for the sensible response after realizing their mistake, this is all too rare.
- serge2k 11y agoI don't think it is that rare to realize that pissing off a (actually respected!) large internet publication is a mistake.
- fweespeech 11y agoThis makes one wonder if its a bot sending out these IMAX letters/flagging things for IMAX to send letters to and their lawyer just blindly sends them out without much thought.
- pascalmemories 11y agoIt's absolutely automated. Whole companies specialize in it (Cyveillance is one - look them up) and routinely patrol the web looking for any use of trademarks and then automatically sending out threats. I worked on a site selling second-hand goods and there were around a dozen robots patrolling the site every day, completely ignoring the robots.txt (but fetching it in order to specifically look at disallowed links first). They homed in on any trademarks and kept fetching the pages repeatedly. They became such a bandwidth hog that I had to block their IPs (whole CIDR blocks) - if you blocked the user agent, they immediately re-fetch with a faked IE or Mozilla UA and then used that to trawl the site. Once they have their 'evidence' of the mark use, they would post (regular snail mail) automated threats with the offending web pages printed and the TM terms highlighted. Typically demanded money (but not always) plus a promise never to use the TM ever again and destroy all computer records containing the TM. Thankfully the shop owners just ignored them as, like the article points out, it's perfectly legitimate to use a trademark in context. Besides in the country concerned it was a trading description offence to incorrectly describe the goods (fines and loss of license to trade in second hand goods). (i.e. if it is a genuine Gucci handbag, you describe it as that but if it is a fake, you must not mention Gucci. Enforcement officers checked regularly that the rules were followed - surprisingly logical and sensible and trumps any nonsense from an automated TM enforcement bot).
- chc 11y agoThere is no possible way that somebody actually sends out nastygrams to everyone who says "IMAX" on the Web, or even "Gucci" for that matter — otherwise HN would be getting threats any day now, since I just used both. More likely your site was targeted because it looked like a potential outlet for counterfeits or something.
- archon 11y ago> It's absolutely automated. Is there really a bot smart enough to scan an article, then not only complain about the direct mention of IMAX (which is easy enough), but also be able to connect that mention of IMAX with a virtual reality system? I find that unlikely, unless the IMAX people had a specialized bot written just for them. I'd certainly believe that an automated system found the article in the first place, but my instinct is that a human actually sent the letter.
- waterlesscloud 11y agoGeneral Counsel sends out complaint letter, Chief Marketing Officer sends out apology.
- vermontdevil 11y agoDoubt that high up. Probably one of the underlings or a contracted law firm.
- yeukhon 11y agoShould CEO come out and apologize? What do people recommend? If I were the boss, and found my company's action took the wrong way, would I, the CEO, not get involved in the public apology?
- ikeboy 11y agoIt depends on how large the mistake is compared to how large the company is.
- morganvachon 11y agoIt's in the article itself, yes it was "that high up": "This morning, we were sent a follow-up e-mail offering an "IMAX-sized" apology from IMAX Chief Marketing Officer Eileen Campbell."
- waterlesscloud 11y agoI think GP means the General Counsel didn't personally send the first email, which might well be the case.
- morganvachon 11y agoCould be. Still, the original letter appeared to come directly from a lawyer with an @imax.com email address, and she holds the title of Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Secretary: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ars-technica-letter.pdf http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ars-te...
- comrh 11y agoBut they didn't even understand the problem??? > Unfortunately in this situation we acted too quickly without truly understanding the reference to our brand. Any reference to their brand is not a trademark issue. That is the point of the whole article in Ars to begin with!
- opcvx 11y agoExactly. I wonder how would this go down if the writer of the article compared IMAX directly instead of quoting a source.
- mpicker0 11y agoOr something between the two. I find Ars claim "The single reference to IMAX in the story..." a little disingenuous; the title of the article and even the URL slug includes the reference to IMAX. Not that IMAX's response was justified, and I applaud them for backing down, but if Ars is going to be so indignant, they should at least be more accurate.
- rustynails77 11y agoArs has largely lost its way over the last year. There's been a strategic change behind the scenes from their management. Their articles (which used to be excellent, and a few still are) are now usually tabloid fodder. The previous focus on SHTEAM (science, history, technology, engineering arts and mathematics) is all but gone - instead, replaced with more and more click-bait and trashy headlines. To give you one example of the rubbish Ars now focusses on, http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2015/01/report-ghostbusters-reboot-will-star-kristen-wiig-melissa-mccarthy/ http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2015/01/report-ghostbu... If there's something meaningful in this article, it's lost on me. Or the stream of articles of how someone recorded someone else doing something. 18 months ago, Ars was only interested in history, engineering and the arts. Now it's mostly tabloid.
- stonemetal 11y ago>Any reference to their brand is not a trademark issue True, but I can kind of see IMAX's point. In the context of the original use IMAX was used as a generic name for a very Large, high quality display. They don't want to become Kleenex or Xerox so they need to curtail those kinds of uses or they lose their mark.
- opcvx 11y agoIMAX sized. Interesting phrase. I wonder if I can now legally use it in marketing, publishing, reviews..., since I will be quoting the company itself.
- chris_wot 11y agoThe issue is one of trademark dilution. The relevant legislation is codified in 15 U.S. Code § 1125 (c), which states: Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury. Note that it says "commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce" - use of the trademark in an article that cites it in a quote, or even uses it colloquially, is not going to apply. The lawyer who sent the cease and desist letter fundamentally misunderstood the law, and frankly I'd be concerned they were giving me incorrect counsel. A lawyer who holds such a fundamental misunderstanding of trademark law is, in my mind, a material risk to any business who needs to protect their trademark, and I'd be getting rid of them as soon as possible. I'm not even talking about the PR blunder here: I'm talking about the fact that they are incompetent, and you never want incompetent legal advise.
- fraXis 11y agoThis reminds me of a story Mad Magazine's Dick DeBartolo likes to tell. He did a 'The Empire Strikes Back' Mad Magazine edition in 1980. George Lucas sent him a personal written letter telling him how much he enjoyed the issue. A little bit later, Lucasfilm's legal department also sent Dick a threatening legal letter informing him that Mad Magazine was infringing on 'The Empire Strikes Back' copyright with the issue they had released. Dick opened his desk drawer and took out George Lucas' personal letter praising the issue, made a copy of it, and mailed it back to Lucasfilm legal. He never heard from them again.
- smhenderson 11y agoThe Empire Strikes Out - I actually had that issue when I was a kid. I loved Mad but throw in Star Wars and I cried like a baby until my mom bought it for me! http://tinyurl.com/njzurw9 http://tinyurl.com/njzurw9
- backtoyoujim 11y agoU of Oregon has had a similar with ducks and mice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Duck#Relationship_with_Disney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Duck#Relationship_w....
- iMark 11y agoNicely defused with a letter than appeared to come from a human being. I'm left with the impression that in many instances lawyers only get in the way.
- dnautics 11y agoIt's not so much the lawyers but the law. The law says that for trademarks, you have to make an effort to defend it or else you lose it. The degree to which making an effort is necessary is not entirely clear, so they have to make a paper trail to that end, even if it means being aggressive and then apologizing afterwards.
- djrogers 11y agoNo no no. There is no point of the law that is so unclear as to make anyone think a reference to a traemanrk in a 3rd party quote in a piece of journalism is infringement. This was either stupidity or laziness. Probably both.
- kbenson 11y agoI think dnautics was responding to the general claim "I'm left with the impression that in many instances lawyers only get in the way." and may not have been commenting on this specific instance.
- rcthompson 11y agoStupidity or laziness, or misapplied machine learning.
- vacri 11y agoThere's selection bias at play here - how often have you heard someone gossipping about a reasonable legal demand politely offered, which they complied with? Makes for a dull read.
- davesque 11y agoNice. Well done, IMAX!
- javajosh 11y agoYes, but it just brings them back to 0 in my book.
- mathattack 11y agoReminiscent of the famous Jack Daniels cease and desist. http://brokenpianoforpresident.com/2012/07/19/jack-daniels-lawsuit-the-full-scoop/ http://brokenpianoforpresident.com/2012/07/19/jack-daniels-l...
- janfoeh 11y agoWell, colour me surprised. This is the first c&d I have come across that actually improves my opinion of the entity releasing it. Thank you for posting this.
- mikeash 11y agoIt really is excellent. I have to wonder why they aren't all like this. It costs no more to write a nice letter like this one than a mean one as is the standard, and surely they'd realize this approach gets better results!
- Natsu 11y agoSome of the better lawyers do work like this, when possible. This is not the only example I've seen, though I can't seem to find easy examples offhand as it's been a while since I saw one like this. The sad thing is that a lot of people demand an aggressive lawyer and some even brand themselves this way, especially on TV ("we'll _fight_ for you!") so you end up with lots of "attack dog" lawyers, sadly.
- logicallee 11y agoI agree it's excellent, but I don't know how you can say >It costs no more to write a nice letter like this one than a mean one as is the standard when the letter includes a literal offer to transfer cash to its recipient to cover their redesign costs. So yes, it does cost more than any other type of letter :) It still sounds pretty good.
- mikeash 11y agoThat's fair. The letter would still be friendly and effective without that offer, though.
- mathattack 11y agoYet another reason not to listen to the lawyers who like to make fights out of issues they don't understand. Companies need to protect their trademarks, and they need lawyers who know when their trademarks are legitimately under threat.
- dnautics 11y agoBut the lawyers cannot really know, because that becomes up to a judge later on. There is no clear algorithmic formula to decide if they were sufficiently defensive in the eyes of the law. They have to make a best effort at defending the trademark, so in general the best strategy is to err on the side of overagression and apology. If someone says, hey, you were lax in defending your trademark, down the line, they can point and say, nu-uh, we we were so aggressive a C-level officer had to issue an apology!
- andybak 11y agoAgreeing there is a grey area isn't the same as accepting any absurdity as reasonable. This was as dumb as any trademark claim I've ever heard. Oh. Maybe apart from this: http://www.neatorama.com/2009/03/10/logo-fight-remax-vs-rehava/ http://www.neatorama.com/2009/03/10/logo-fight-remax-vs-reha...
- mathattack 11y agoIn this case it looked like the lawyers just Google searched for IMAX. You can't threaten everyone who ever mentions your firm.
- grellas 11y agoBack in the day, a C&D was a private affair. As a lawyer, you would give someone the big blast and, right or wrong, you could not really embarrass your client because you were basically writing to an audience of one. Today, if you screw up on the law or are tone-deaf in how you say things, you and particularly your client will find yourselves on public display as potential objects of ridicule. That is what happened here. Writing a good C&D is an art and it is amazing how much more effective something can be if it communicates truly and well without taking on a needlessly stiff and formal tone. Because, in the end, there is always a purpose behind these things. Trademarks are intended to protect brand origin and if someone who is not the brand owner makes misleading use of a mark to palm off the phony for the real, well, people can understand that and even sympathize with the plight of anyone who has felt ripped off in that way. The art lies in being able to make the legal points without sounding like a bully or an ass. It can be and is done every day when people who are truly infringers do things wrong and find themselves getting slammed. But those C&Ds tend not to find their way into public view. Here, the C&D was absurdly wrong on the law and tone deaf to boot. Kudos to the IMAX and Ars execs for finding a way to handle the thing in the end as a class act and not as a low-brow fight. Speaking even as a lawyer, it is really nice to see.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- crunkykd 11y agoI think IMAX achieved a counter-effect of people actually realizing that a VR headset would have a widescreen field of view larger than IMAX could ever have. It's only a matter of time until the big screen, highly immersive theater experience will not be seen as an IMAX.