I've also never understood things like this from a marketing perspective. Like this is definitely dissimilar, but even if it were an on the nose deal with like "Sauron Sauce" or whatever as one of their offerings, you're still getting recognition.
Even if the Tolkien estate were concerned about the cheapening of their "brand", who tf cares? It's obviously not about that, because I just checked and there is a line of LOTR Funko Pops for fuck's sake.
And if a work like The Lord of the Rings can't stand on its own (with regard to seriousness and artistic value) with the addition of kitschy wing trucks, I don't know what else would.
Seems like a win-win to me, but then again, I fucking hate trademarking and patenting laws in general. Intellectual property is a pretty spurious concept at best and courts around the world have consistently shown it is a tool used to quash innovation, promote stagnant wealth, and keep the heel on the middle and lower classes.
Wonder what Tolkien would think? His decendents become greedy assholes.
I think all trademarks should die on works of art 20 years after the person dies.
Trademarks aren't copyright or patents. The entire point of trademarks is to identify a brand. That said, I don't really understand trademarking LOTR at all, it seems like it's copyright, but IP laws are used so broadly now to just stifle things that who TF knows, and I have no idea about NZ law.
Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with food or chicken wings trucks, so seems like it shouldn't apply. Usually trademarks are in the same industry, so you wouldn't want someone else writing a knock off series of books called Lord of the Rings and trademark would help there.
That said, the other thing that seems suspicious to me is trademarks in the US are pretty specific - it has to be the exact wording which is why so many companies "mispell" the names, well that and in the US you often can't trademark a generic word (though Apple threw a wrench in that one). Or the graphic design has to be extremely close.
You can trademark a generic word, but only in a specific context. Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows", for example, but it only applies if you're using it in the name of an operating system.
I don't think when a person dies should have much to do with it, if anything. Set a time from when the work is created, not when the person dies.
I hate dead hands lol
Edit: especially when they don't even really work off of a wish or command from the deceased
I think the Funko-pops are actually a good example of why they need to protect the trademark. What if the estate does want to start marketing wing sauces? What if they want to sponsor a hot wing eating contest? Or host an aerial stunt show? Would they need to split the proceeds with the guy who owns the food truck?
All of these ideas are stupid, and would cheapen the brand, but it's their brand. If they don't defend it, it makes future protections harder. If they don't fight Lord of the Wings, what about Lord of the Strings? Lord of the Springs? Slings? Things? Blings?
Brand dilution isn't just about the one narrow use case.
I agree that the Funko Pop example cheapens their property. Doesn't seem that they care.
And of course it's not about just one wing truck. Estates like these are not innovating and are not holding air shows or wing competitions. And unless they're stealing trade secrets of making wing sauces or the intricacies of hosting aerial events, I say let the estate compete in those areas or even choose to sponsor these already established entities who've entered the market before the estate did anything with their IP.
But that's my point. If Tolkien's great grandchildren want to sell hot wing sauce some day, they shouldn't have to fight some guy with a food truck because "he thought of it first." Branding is the opposite of a trade secret, and there's no free market solution to competition for a name. Trademarks must be defended in court, or you lose them.
That's why I said it would be a better argument if it were "Lord of Wings" because it conveys almost exactly the same sentiment that the owner is claiming to want to convey, and removing the "the" from the title changes the cadence and format of the title, further separating it from existing IP.
Like this is definitely dissimilar, but even if it were an on the nose deal with like “Sauron Sauce” or whatever as one of their offerings, you’re still getting recognition.
At least in US Intellectual Property Law there are rules for some areas that once you, as the rights holder, know of possibly infringement you must defend your IP or you risk losing it.
Yes, but trademarks only apply to a single industry in the US.
I could open a coffee shop called Ford Motor Company, and Ford couldn't do a damn thing about it.
I've also never understood things like this from a marketing perspective. Like this is definitely dissimilar, but even if it were an on the nose deal with like "Sauron Sauce" or whatever as one of their offerings, you're still getting recognition.
Even if the Tolkien estate were concerned about the cheapening of their "brand", who tf cares? It's obviously not about that, because I just checked and there is a line of LOTR Funko Pops for fuck's sake.
And if a work like The Lord of the Rings can't stand on its own (with regard to seriousness and artistic value) with the addition of kitschy wing trucks, I don't know what else would.
Seems like a win-win to me, but then again, I fucking hate trademarking and patenting laws in general. Intellectual property is a pretty spurious concept at best and courts around the world have consistently shown it is a tool used to quash innovation, promote stagnant wealth, and keep the heel on the middle and lower classes.
Wonder what Tolkien would think? His decendents become greedy assholes.
I think all trademarks should die on works of art 20 years after the person dies.
Trademarks aren't copyright or patents. The entire point of trademarks is to identify a brand. That said, I don't really understand trademarking LOTR at all, it seems like it's copyright, but IP laws are used so broadly now to just stifle things that who TF knows, and I have no idea about NZ law.
Lord of the Rings has nothing to do with food or chicken wings trucks, so seems like it shouldn't apply. Usually trademarks are in the same industry, so you wouldn't want someone else writing a knock off series of books called Lord of the Rings and trademark would help there.
That said, the other thing that seems suspicious to me is trademarks in the US are pretty specific - it has to be the exact wording which is why so many companies "mispell" the names, well that and in the US you often can't trademark a generic word (though Apple threw a wrench in that one). Or the graphic design has to be extremely close.
You can trademark a generic word, but only in a specific context. Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows", for example, but it only applies if you're using it in the name of an operating system.
I don't think when a person dies should have much to do with it, if anything. Set a time from when the work is created, not when the person dies.
I hate dead hands lol
Edit: especially when they don't even really work off of a wish or command from the deceased
I think the Funko-pops are actually a good example of why they need to protect the trademark. What if the estate does want to start marketing wing sauces? What if they want to sponsor a hot wing eating contest? Or host an aerial stunt show? Would they need to split the proceeds with the guy who owns the food truck?
All of these ideas are stupid, and would cheapen the brand, but it's their brand. If they don't defend it, it makes future protections harder. If they don't fight Lord of the Wings, what about Lord of the Strings? Lord of the Springs? Slings? Things? Blings?
Brand dilution isn't just about the one narrow use case.
I agree that the Funko Pop example cheapens their property. Doesn't seem that they care.
And of course it's not about just one wing truck. Estates like these are not innovating and are not holding air shows or wing competitions. And unless they're stealing trade secrets of making wing sauces or the intricacies of hosting aerial events, I say let the estate compete in those areas or even choose to sponsor these already established entities who've entered the market before the estate did anything with their IP.
But that's my point. If Tolkien's great grandchildren want to sell hot wing sauce some day, they shouldn't have to fight some guy with a food truck because "he thought of it first." Branding is the opposite of a trade secret, and there's no free market solution to competition for a name. Trademarks must be defended in court, or you lose them.
That's why I said it would be a better argument if it were "Lord of Wings" because it conveys almost exactly the same sentiment that the owner is claiming to want to convey, and removing the "the" from the title changes the cadence and format of the title, further separating it from existing IP.
At least in US Intellectual Property Law there are rules for some areas that once you, as the rights holder, know of possibly infringement you must defend your IP or you risk losing it.
Yes, but trademarks only apply to a single industry in the US.
I could open a coffee shop called Ford Motor Company, and Ford couldn't do a damn thing about it.
Not sure how it works in NZ, though.