Making the world safe for law firm ads
'Spect! Wow, the Dear Rich Staff is impressed. We answered this question two months ago and then the other day, we saw this advertisement on BART.
Bookmark: 
March 12, 2010
March 11, 2010
Copyrighting tracks with vocal samples
Dear Rich: I would like to ask about pre-licensed sample packs. I purchased a CD with vocal samples, in the licensing agreement there was information that "You can use the sounds in any type of non commercial music production without permission." So I asked the producer of the samples if I can use them freely in commercial production and he agreed. When I finished the track I copyrighted it. But because the track has the vocal samples and they are quite popular if I release my track may I have a conflict with other producer as to "who came first?" You won't run into any disputes over the samples.Copyright law doesn't care who came first. All that matters is whether you copied somebody's work without permission. Keep in mind that if the only thing in common between your recording and someone else's is the fact that both of them use the same licensed samples, there is no infringement. You can both co-exist in sampled harmony.The good and the bad. The great thing about licensed samples is that you have inexpensive access to great sounding audio clips. The downside is that anybody else can also purchase the same rights, and end up sounding like your tracks. (Just like anybody can license the same photo in their blog as the one we licensed from istockphoto.) By the way, if you register your new tracks, the Dear RIch Staff suggests that you state that you are not claiming rights to the samples (in section 4 of Form CO).
Bookmark:
March 10, 2010
Supercalafragalisticexpialidocious! Can you protect coined words?
Dear Rich: I'm creating a cartoon world which contains several coined words describing things, actions and types of creatures, a little bit like Tolkien's "Lord Of The Rings". Does copyright give me the exclusive right to use these words in money-making ways? For example, could Tolkien have restricted the sale of T-shirts that used the word "Hobbit", either by itself or as part of a phrase? As a general rule, copyright does not protect single words or short phrases, even if those words or short phrases are nonsense.
Tell it to the Hand. There is an odd collection of copyright cases that indicate that nonsense words may be protectable in different contexts. In a case in which a book of meaningless code words was protected (Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau), the great jurist Learned Hand (and odd-couple pal to J.D. Salinger) wrote, "Conceivably there may arise a poet who strings together words without rational sequence-perhaps even coined syllables-through whose beauty, cadence, meter and rhyme he may seek to make poetry." (Hand's logic in that case was later used as the basis for protecting Apple's operating system object code. The protection of inventive words was part of the copyright-software debate in the late 1980s since nonsense words (source code) are essentially what facilitate our 'human-machine' communications.)
The Jabberwock. In another case, the great Justice Jerome Frank also mentioned a phrase from Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky, "Twas brillig and the slithy toves" as an example of a nonsense phrase with sufficient originality to achieve copyright protection. There's also a case involving the word 'Supercalafragalisticexpialidocious' in which the court held that copying an inventive word could 'conceivably' create liability. And finally, a British court reviewing the word "Exxon' indicated that inventive words might be protected in some contexts. So, it's possible a sufficiently original collection of coined words will be protected.
When inventive words are character names. If you use the inventive word as a character name, you can likely achieve trademark protection without much problem. You may also get some peripeheral copyright protection for the character name as well -- for example, in one case, merchandisers were stopped from using the phrase "E.T. Phone Home" under copyright law.
Alice's House. Yes, the new Tim Burton movie features the Jabberwock as well as the complete version of the Jabberwocky poem.
Bookmark:
March 9, 2010
Reselling Apple Products Redux
Dear Rich: I have a question about one of your posts, titled Reselling Apple Products from February of 2009.
I am interested in opening an online store and selling Apple products. However, I am not interested in becoming an authorized reseller. Am I allowed to do that? I emailed Apple (their reseller program) asking whether I can do that, and they emailed me back this morning:
"Ben, you can only sell Apple products as an Apple Authorized Reseller."
Are they right? Will I be acting illegally if I open my store and sell their products? Gee, was that really over a year ago that we wrote that post about reselling Apple stuff? Time sure flies when you have mutated DNA. Is Apple right? ... Since Apple's email has raised concerns, we reviewed our information. Conclusion: we're standing by our post. The Dear Rich Staff loves its Mac (and by extension that loves goes out to all Apple employees) and we can only assume that the Apple customer service rep who responded to you had a momentary lapse of judgment perhaps triggered by iPad hysteria.
Hassling Nonauthorized Resellers? Apple cannot halt resales of legitimately acquired U.S. versions of its products. But it can enforce its copyright and trademark rights which means that they may go after unauthorized resellers who use the Apple logo or name to imply Apple's endorsement, or who lift advertising copy or images from the Apple site. On that basis, they pursued unauthorized iPod sellers in 2005 and pursued unauthorized Mac resellers back in 1998. They will also apparently pursue unauthorized resellers who induce authorized resellers to breach their reseller agreements whatever that means -- we haven't located a reseller agreement, so we're not sure.
Bookmark:
March 8, 2010
Can Anyone Sell Taggies?
Dear Rich: My question is in regards to what some people call the, "Taggie" blankets. I see that a lot of people make and sell them on etsy.com. I've heard that there was some sort of controversary with this is...and that any kind of looped ribbon sewn between two types of fabric is patentened by the TAGGIE corporation. I've just learned how to make these myself and intend to sell them, but I won't if there are legal issues. Yes, you are correct that Taggies is patented (RE38,782). Without going into all of the boring details, if you step on the innovation that is described in the patent, you'll become a potential defendant (Although we haven't seen any lawsuits, apparently the company does send out C&D warnings.) Would it be worthwhile to challenge the patent's validity? If Taggies was "obvious" to those in the children's blanket-making field before the patent was filed, then the patent will be invalidated (assuming somebody has the time and money to fight the battle).We turn to the experts. So, the Dear Rich Staff asked Greg Aharonian, a professional patent searcher (and author and patent gadfly) what he thought about the patent's validity (and it looks like it would be a tough challenge). Greg reports: "I can observe a few things.
First, the applicants submitted a fair amount of prior art, both patents
and non-patents, more than most patents, so it looks like the inventors
were seriously pursuing the patent. They submitted multiple examples of
a close piece of prior art, "Tag Along Tags blankets," and still got
the patent issued. And they cite 'Taggly,' a toy that
has tags, which they argue doesn't anticipate a blanket, but is otherwise
prior art.
So a primary examiner issued them the patent - twice (the patent and the
reissue). So circa ten years ago, their invention was considered
non-obvious enough to be granted a patent."
Would their patent hold up with today's obviousness standard
of "what is predictable" from KSR? Applying that newer standard, Greg says, "Is a Taggie blanket a predictable variation of
the Taggly taggy toy? Well, if you squish the toy flat, you have a
blanket-shaped object with tags - the Taggies patent. Seems a predictable
variation to me.
Or not? The Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has made a mess of
things. A few PATNEWS ago, I mentioned a recent CAFC decision where
two judges ruled that it is obvious to go from a Marilyn Monroe card
with non-memorabilia item attached - to a baseball card with a memorabilia
item attached. Yet Judge Rader, the next chief justice of the CAFC,
dissented, saying it wasn't obvious, and that his two colleagues were
basically .... idiots. I have no idea how these same three judges would
rule on the Taggies patent. And no one else could predict their decision
as well, because obviousness caselaw is such a mess.
So is the Taggies patent obvious in light of the cited art (or anything
similar I could find in a search)? I would rather try to achieve world
peace." Thanks Greg, and we're sure if you applied the same skillset you use in busting patents to world peace, the world would be a better place.
Bookmark:
March 5, 2010
Needs License for Watching the Detectives
Dear Rich: I want to use the melody (we will do the lyrics) of the 1977 Elvis Costello song Watching the Detectives in a promotional video. It is for a medical device company. Term is 9 months (this year). Do I need a sync license? Who is this sent to? (Costello is within the Universal Music Publishing Group). Wow, the Dear Rich Staff loves that song. Using it to promote medical devices is really thinking outside the box -- like way outside.
Right, you had a question ... Yes, you need a sync license and you would need permission to modify the lyrics. You should speak with the publisher -- yes, it's Universal Music Publishing. Contact them at 2440 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 235-4700. If you run into a problem -- the typical one being that nobody takes your calls -- you may need to hire a clearance expert. You can read more about that stuff in our book.
If you create your own version of the song and don't imitate the singing style of Elvis Costello -- imitating artists in ads leads to problems -- you will only need the permission of the publisher (or administrator).
Bookmark:
March 4, 2010
Claiming Rights to NBA Player Nickname
My nephew has come up with a new nickname for the NBA player Jonas Jerebko from Sweden ("The Swedish Eagle"). He and his buddy have come to games with a self designed t-shirt that sports an eagle-like bird with a ball in the talons and the jersey number of the player, player's name on the back like a jersey and the player's country flag, as well as cardboard wings and have generated a little publicity for themselves and their concept. Pictures of them have been on a couple of websites, a newspaper, jumbotron at the arena and television coverage of the game. Jerebko also has signed the cardboard wings with his name and an "aka The Swedish Eagle." They are in the process of obtaining a trademark so they can sell t-shirts or other marketing kitsch. No one has the title yet.
Can they print the shirts before getting trademark for "The Swedish Eagle" concept? Do they need Jerebko's permission? NBA permission? Can they use the shirts without his name? Do my nephew and friend need a partnership or can they register under both names? The Dear Rich Staff isn't very good at forecasting the future, but one thing we can predict with some certainty is that as soon as the NBA is aware of your nephew's sale of merchandise with the player's name and number, they'll get their lawyers to fire off a letter demanding that he halt the activity. We could be wrong -- and they may prefer to wait and see if it goes away itself. But if we were in your nephew's position, we wouldn't file that trademark application. As nice as the imagery and nickname may be, people are buying the merchandise because of its association with the player -- the use of his name and number cinches the association. The NBA, along with the various teams, controls the rights to exploit the player for merchandising purposes. So, he's stepping on those rights and the NBA usually doesn't like it. But we thought up the nick name ... As we've pointed out before, creating a trademark does not give you exclusive trademark rights. You get the rights if the mark qualifies and if you use it in commerce. Your nephew's application may be granted (or maybe not...) but he'll have a hard time using it if he combines it with any insignia or text that identifies the NBA or its players. He'll also have an uphill battle trying to stop others from using the name in connection with Jerebko. If your nephew avoids any mention of the player name or number or other team identifier, he may be able to get away with his use and sale of merchandise ... it's a little bit like the recent situation in New Orleans. But the bigger his operation becomes, the more likely he'll be to run into trouble.
Bookmark:
March 3, 2010
Stopped Taking Photos Because of Photo Releases
I work for a non-profit and my board members are obsessed with getting photo releases - but as they don't have a good one and they often want to photograph events with LOTS of people - they refrain from taking photos at all. I was under the impression that unless a photo was going to be sold, no release was needed. Is there a guideline that will enlighten both myself and my board about when photos and video that will be used for things like social media and newsletters require releases from their subjects? I am afraid this question is going to lead to a "it varies from state to state" answer. Actually, the answer doesn't vary from state to state (and in any case the Dear Rich Staff would never do you like that!) By the way, you might get more out of reading this discussion or by having your nonprofit spring for this book.You need a release if ... A properly drafted release basically shields you from lawsuits over two things: (1) you're using someone's image to sell or endorse something; or (2) using the image in a way that harms the person -- it invades the person's privacy or defames the person or otherwise gets them so upset that they call a lawyer and go after the publisher of the photo and sometimes the photographer.
You do not need a release if ... You do not need a release to use a person's name or image for informational purposes. An informational (or "editorial") purpose is anything that informs, educates, or expresses opinions protected as freedom of speech. So if you have a section of your website such as "About Our Members" or you include the images in your non-profit newsletter -- for example, "Members Protest Disney World Mouse Exploitation," then you wouldn't need a release.
Finally ... although it doesn't have the full legal punch of a release, you can always prominently post your photo policy at group gatherings -- a statement such as "We'll be taking photos at our event and posting them at our website. If you don't wish to be included, please inform the photographer."
Bookmark:
March 2, 2010
Who Is the Dear Rich Staff, really?
Dear Rich: You show a lot of odd pictures of the Dear Rich Staff. It seems a little frivolous to dispense legal advice and yet attribute it to fictitious sources. We agree that people who dispense legal advice should not hide behind a veneer of frivolity. However, the Dear Rich Staff does not dispense legal advice (and we are not entering into an attorney-client relationship ... blah blah blah). Instead, we provide information that we hope can guide you in your decision making. Unlike lawyers who bill by the hour, our staff is free to go off on long-winded side discussions about subjects that would have you smashing the meter at the lawyer's office. By way of example, we're not sure why we keep thinking about that Coco Chanel movie. We think it's because the filmmakers did a good job of humanizing the creation of intellectual property -- showing how Coco picked up cues from her environment (cues that others failed to appreciate) and how she confidently persevered to merge them all into her unique style. (Great artists are usually great opportunists.) She earned a living from her artistic vision and her company still thrives even though nothing but her name (and logo) is protected under law. The Dear Rich Staff is impressed.
Right, you had a "question." We've been getting a lot of "questions" that don't have any question marks and we may have to come up with a policy about that.
Bookmark:
March 1, 2010
Optioning Theatrical Rights From Heirs
Dear Rich: I'm optioning theatrical rights from an author's heirs. I'm using a boilerplate option contract to option the rights. Before I enter into the contract, should the heirs have to provide right of title from the Copyright Office and proof of ownership? We don't know what language is included in your option agreement -- the Dear Rich Staff finds 'boilerplate' to be a deceptive term (with even more deceptive origins). However, you're on the right track by wanting some form of assurance or verification.Good title; bad title. How do you verify that someone owns copyright? You can start by searching Copyright Office records, or you can hire a search company to research the copyright history. Search results, alas, are not always conclusive. The heirs may not yet have registered ownership in their name, may not have filed documentation evidencing the transfer, or they may have filed documents that have not yet been recorded. There is also the possibility that the records reflect that the heirs own copyright ... but don't reflect the fact that they have since transferred rights. Finally, the heirs may have provided incorrect information to the Copyright Office. A registration doesn't verify that the person owns the copyright; it creates a presumption that the person owns it.
Assurances. So, a wise approach may be to research on your own and to also seek assurances in your option agreement. You can include warranties -- guarantees as to representations of fact -- and indemnities -- promises to pay for all damages and costs if a third-party sues over the ownership issue. At the absolute minimum your option agreement must include a warranty from the heirs that they have the power and authority to enter into the option agreement. You can also ask that the heirs provide you with documentation from the Copyright Office evidencing ownership (that may require them to file documents) and you may also seek other proof of the transfer -- a copy of the will, an opinion letter from the attorney, or documentation from the probate court.
Wild card department. Though it's probably not an issue, it may matter whether the work falls under the 1909 Act or the 1976 Act (effective January 1, 1978). This could affect the rights of the heirs to terminate previously existing transfers of ownership. It's confusing stuff and a lawyer's assistance may be required.
Bookmark:
February 26, 2010
We Can Use Clip Art, Right?
Dear Rich: Our company offers a website directory service for advertisers. The advertisers can supply a photo but some of them now want to supply artwork. As long as the image came from clip-art, or some other publicly "royalty-free" stock photo site, it can be used without permission, correct? We wish that were true. Our own sad story. A few months ago, the Dear Rich Staff modified (perhaps 'transformed' would be a better verb) a clip art image and used it at our blog. A few weeks later, we got a letter from a lawyer representing the clip art owner demanding a bunch of money (at least enough to buy a couple of kayaks) or face a lawsuit. Fortunately, we made enough noise about fair use to keep the lawyers away (although of course, the statute of limitations hasn't run on that one). But the message is clear -- don't assume that clip art is free to use or modify.
Understanding the Terminology. The terms clip art, public domain art, royalty-free art, and copyright-free art are often used interchangeably (and confusingly). So here's a primer:
Clip art is a general term used to refer to any artwork that is available in a collection, either in a book or on a computer disk. Clip art may be in the public domain or royalty-free.
Public domain art is not protected by copyright. Many publishers, such as Dover Books, specialize in offering collections of public domain art. You are free to copy and use the individual artwork in a public domain collection without permission. However, you are not free to copy and sell the collection.
Royalty-free art is protected under copyright law and cannot be used for free. However, once you buy the CD-ROM or pay for access to a website that contains royalty-free artwork, your license to use the images is largely unlimited, so you can usually use the works numerous times for a broad range of uses. Use for merchandising -- putting the image on a t-shirt -- or some commercial endorsements -- using the image in a magazine ad -- may not be allowed -- a major exception to the rule that you can use royalty-free images any way you like.
Copyright-free art is the most confusing terminology. Some people use it to refer to public domain artwork; others use it to refer to royalty-free artwork. Often, it's used to describe artwork that websites offer for free to the public -- whether the works are public domain works or royalty-free works. We think it's a meaningless term.
Creative Commons artwork.To be on the safe side, clip art users might want to consider filtering their image search by using the Creative Commons image search filter (that's how we found "Sad Cat" by Peter M., above). And check the license to see if it fits your purposes.
Long story short. The other day we were at Cafe Trieste on their very long line and the guy in front of us was telling an acquaintance a very long story and at least three times, he said, 'Long story short,' and had we had less frontal lobe control, we might have said, "Dude, how can it be 'long story short,' you've already gone on for, like, ten minutes?" Ennyway, if an advertiser is providing you with artwork, you might want to get a warranty or indemnity in your agreement and if necessary, have them furnish you with evidence (terms of use, license, etc.) that they have permission to use the art.
Bookmark:
February 25, 2010
Show me the Money: Finding an Agent for an Invention
Dear RIch: I am an independent inventor and I am seeking an Intellectual property agent to represent me and my invention to the market. I currently have about 9 months left before I know whether the United States Patent office will grant me my patent but I feel I should not wait till the last minute to research this.
My question is this, where do I find an intellectual property agent with the experience and knowledge in the field I need?
My patent is for a new type of intake and exhaust valve system for the internal combustion engine.
Obtaining an agent can be as difficult as locating a licensee. Most agents are not looking for clients. They rely on word of mouth from friends or other inventors. The agents we spoke with when researching our
licensing book requested that their names not be included. Why? Because they already have sufficient client listings and attract business strictly from referrals. How do you find an agent? There are five common methods: referrals from businesses, referrals from inventors, trade shows, trade magazine advertisements, and the Internet. Certain licensing publications also list licensing agents and service organizations
that appraise new inventions. For example, The Licensing Journal often includes lists of technology agents. (That's a pricey journal however, and you may want to check your local law library for copies.)Don't confuse agents with invention marketing scams. Invention marketing scams can be distinguished
from legitimate agents because generally agents: are hard to find because they rarely
advertise; do not give a sales pitch to inventors; will tell an inventor if the invention
has flaws or risk factors; and provide a list of satisfied clients.
In other words, a real agent is realistic
about your invention and is usually willing
to take a risk for a percentage of the
profits. Some qualified agents may offer
to evaluate your product. The evaluations
performed by legitimate reps usually cost
several hundred dollars and result in a
critique that is particular to your invention
and the appropriate industry.
Although scam marketers may seek a
percentage of profits, they actually make
their money by exorbitant
up-front fees
that are unrelated to any service
that they
perform. As a general rule, a person
or
company that demands more than $1,000
in up-front fees and will not furnish you
with a list of clients is probably a scam
marketing venture. If in doubt about the legitimacy of a company, check Invent.net or the National
inventor Fraud Center which includes a
list of suspected companies, as well
as helpful links--for example, to the
Federal Trade Commission.
Bookmark:
February 24, 2010
Protecting Equestrian Graphics
Dear Rich: I am equestrian artist that will be adding a t-shirt line to my portfolio. My graphic designer has created my horseshoe graphic, which I own and I have created one line phrases for each shirt. I will also be using these graphics on other items such as bags, mugs etc. I have a few questions as this is all new territory for me. (1) I am currently working with a woman who can embroider, applique and silk screen them for me. How can I prevent her from selling my line herself on her own web site? (2) I will be in contact with a company that will make the shirts and then also bring them to trade shows in our industry. Having not talked to them yet, my guess is they pay you an amount for every shirt sold since they are doing most of the marketing. (3) I don't understand the licensing process much and what are the benefits and how do I even do it? How can I prevent others from duplicating my work...most importantly the phrases I come up with as these are unique. Since the Dear Rich Staff is trying to increase readership and since we have a relative who is a devoted equestrian, it wouldn't be a good idea to discuss how much we don't like all that horse stuff (especially the weird little English hats with the brim) and how we can't stand "horse movies." (And being lawyers we don't understand why there are no mandatory helmet laws except in Florida and New York and even then, that's only for kids under 16 -- what's up with that? And what about a helmet for the horse while we're at it.). Anyway, aside from our problems with over-sized four-legged animals, you had a question (or questions). Okay, here goes: (1) Generally, if you own the copyright (or trademark) on the merchandise, you control who can reproduce it. So, the woman who works for you wouldn't have any rights to reproduce the horse art. If you're still concerned, you can prevent the worker from competing against you by having her sign a written agreement that states she can't sell your designs. If your designs are not protectable under either copyright or trademark law (see below), that agreement may be hard to enforce. (2) We're not sure that #2, above, is a question so we can't help you with the company or explain how they do business. You should ask them about their terms and then compare them with competitors. We assume you're aware of online merchandising sources like Zazzle and Cafe Press. (3) A license is a form of permission -- in which you allow somebody to exploit property you own in return for a payment, usually in the form of a royalty. It can be a great way to do business because the company doing the licensing (the "licensee") will often police and protect your work as well. You can read more about it in this handy Nolo form kit on the subject.
Short phrase thing. You will have a hard time stopping others from using your short phrases (by themselves) since they're not protected under copyright law. We've talked about this a few times in the past and we're paranoid about boring our readers with more on the subject. You can always protect those phrases when used in association with a graphic -- that is you can stop others from copying the combination. You may be able to register each phrase as a trademark for use with T-shirts and similar merchandise. However, that's a little bit of a financial investment as each phrase will require a separate registration for each class of goods. Tally ho!
Bookmark:
February 23, 2010
Videotaping the Parish Priest
Dear Rich: I am a freelance filmmaker in Chicago and I do volunteer freelance film making for churches. Once a year we have a parish mission at our church and our guest speaker is usually a priest from a different church.
I'm the person in charge of audio/video taping the mission. The church has nothing to do with it at all except they are the beneficiaries of my work. The visiting priest that comes to our parish has already verbally agreed to allow me to tape and make CD/DVDs of the mission for our parish library. How do I obtain rights on the film footage to do what I want without scaring away other priests that may be involved? As chief videographer you probably acquire the copyright in the video. We say "probably" because we don't know if there is some hiring agreement, or whether there are video taping rules within the church (for example, if you are granted special permission to tape, there may be strings attached with that permission.) Assuming you do have copyright ... You should obtain consents from the subjects of your video. Unless you're dealing with producers, investors or distributors, you can probably get by with a videotaped consent. Tell your subject that you need their consent for the following uses (list all your anticipated uses such as distributing DVDs, posting on the web), and explain that you may not use the interview in its entirety-- that is, you may use edited segments. Make sure that there is a real consent -- even something as simple as "Yes, that's okay with me," will work. Then save that video. As we mentioned, if you're dealing with money people or distributors, a written consent -- with its additional provisions and releases, for example, permission to use the priest's name and image in advertising -- may be preferred.
Books that can help. You can find the forms you need in Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off (insert FTC disclaimer) and in Clearance and Copyright: Everything You Need to Know for Film and Television (a great primer on permissions for film makers).
Can't afford a lawyer? You may not need much money to get legal advice. Chicago is one of several cities with "lawyers for the arts" services. This may include pro bono advice or other low cost services. The Dear Rich Staff used to provide free legal advice at the CLA office in San Francisco but then we created this blog, instead! (Speaking of religion, the staff is currently digging this book)
Bookmark:
February 22, 2010
Cracker Jack and Other Roller Derby Names
Dear Rich: I'm trying to find my roller derby name. Being a sci-fi geek, I'm leaning towards the name of a character in a sci-fi novel that would fit me perfectly. Seeing that Frito-Lay has been suing a skater for use of the name "Crackerjack," I'm a bit concerned about infringement on any copyrights/trademarks. Would using the name of a character from a novel amount to infringement? I can't seem to answer this myself! No, using a name from a novel as a your roller derby name shouldn't cause a problem unless perhaps that name is used as the title of a movie or is so popular that people sell merchandise with the name -- for example, Skywalker or Mr. Spock. As you can guess, the more obscure the choice, the less hassle you will have. (Speaking of sci-fi, didn't you love that new Sam Rockwell DVD?)That Cracker Jack Thing. Not to put too fine a point on it, Frito Lay didn't actually file a lawsuit over the use of the name; they filed an opposition to Ms. Bell's application for federal registration for CRACKERJACK. (This kind of thing is usually handled by paperwork filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, whose decisions are thoroughly explained here.) That filing is the kind of action that trademark owners feel they have to take if they want to preserve their rights in the future. (Not that it matters, the company didn't even devise the name, it's believed to have come from a customer who thought the foodstuff was "crackerjack.")
The Dear Rich Staff would hazard a guess that if it had it not been for her quest for registration, our Frito-munching buddies in Texas would have left Ms. Bell alone. Still, it makes us kind of glad we chucked our Cracker Jack toy collection (even though by the 1980s there were hardly any actual toys, it was all these dopey liability-proof paper things. As always, blame it on the lawyers.)
Bookmark:
