French Film Company Somehow Trademarks 'Planet', Goes After Environmental NGOs For Using The Word
Furnished content.
We cover a great many ridiculous and infuriating trademark disputes here, but it's always the disputes around overly broad terms that never should have been trademarked to begin with that are the most frustrating. And that most irritating of those is when we get into geographic terms that never should be locked up by any single company or entity. Examples in the past have included companies fighting over who gets to use the name of their home city of "Detroit", or when grocer Iceland Foods got so aggressive in its own trademark enforcement that the -- checks notes -- nation of Iceland had to seek to revoke the company's EU trademark registration.While it should be self-evident how antithetical to the purpose of trademark laws are to even approve of these kinds of marks, I will say that I didn't see it coming that a company at some point would attempt to play trademark bully over the "planet."Powerful French entertainment company Canal Plus trademarked the term in France, but environmental groups are pushing back, saying they should be allowed to use the word “planet” to promote their projects to save it. Multiple cases are under examination by France’s intellectual property regulator INPI, including one coming to a head this week.Canal Plus argues that the groups' use of the terms “planete” in French, or “planet” in English, for marketing purposes violates its trademarks, registered to protect its Planete TV channels that showcase nature documentaries. That this dispute is even a thing raises questions. Why in the world (heh) would any trademark office approve a mark solely on the word "planet". Such a registration violates all kinds of rules and norms, explicit and otherwise. Geographic terms are supposed to have a high bar for trademark approval. Single word marks not inherently creative typically do as well. And, when trademarks for either are approved, they are typically done so in very narrow terms. That EUIPO somehow managed to approve a trademark that caused a film company to think it can sue or bully NGOs focused on environmental issues for using the word for the rock we all live on together should ring as absurd to anyone who finds out about it.Certainly it did to those on the other end of Canal Plus' bullying, as they seemed to think the whole thing was either a joke or attempt at fraud.The head of environmental group Planete Amazone, Gert-Peter Bruch, thought it was a hoax when he first received a mail from Canal Plus claiming ownership of the planet brand. The group plans to release a documentary in February about the destruction of the Amazon forest and activists’ fight to try to prevent it. Bruch tried to register a trademark for the name of his group before the release of the movie, which is called “Terra Libre” and was made largely by volunteers.“I honestly thought it was a fake at the beginning. I received an email from Canal Plus and I didn’t dare open the attachment because I thought it was a virus. So I called them to ask them whether their legal affairs department tried to contact me, they said yes,” Bruch told The Associated Press. “I read the letter with astonishment," he said. “They were saying, ‘You don’t have the right to protect this brand (Planete Amazone), we are opposing it.'" Bruch wasn't the only one. What Canal Plus tends to argue in all of its threat letters is that public confusion could arise since the nature of each entity's goods is similar to Canal Plus'. The company consists of a film and television studio and cable network that has put out movies such as Basic Instinct and The Pianist. What any of that has to do with environmental work is anyone's guess, though perhaps part of the issue is that these NGOs are putting out films about saving the planet, sometimes using that term in titles and marketing. Still, all of that is a far cry from any real concern for customer confusion.But, as we often note, trademark bullying tends to work. Bruch's organization is hammering out a deal with Canal Plus in an effort to keep using the word "planet." That shouldn't have to occur, but it is. Other groups are waiting on a ruling from the French National Intellectual Property Institute in the hopes that someone somewhere will be sane about all of this.If not, I guess Canal Plus gets to solely use the word "planet" on its small part of the planet. Again, if that is how this shakes out, it's about as crazy as it gets.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 16-Dec-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Trump Appoints Unqualified Guy Who Hates Section 230 To Top Justice Department Role
Furnished content.
In 2018, we wrote about a law professor named Adam Candeub, who was one of the lawyers for white supremacist Jared Taylor, suing Twitter in a doomed lawsuit for kicking him off its platform. I had a confusing email exchange with Candeub which I wrote about in that piece, which suggested that he was either unaware of Section 230 at the time he filed the lawsuit, or simply confused about the long list of decisions around 230 that made the lawsuit an obvious loser (which is what happened). Candeub and his co-counsel were very angry about my article, and insisted that their alternative interpretation of Section 230 would win the day.Since being proven wrong, Candeub has spent a tremendous amount of energy trying to twist and torture Section 230 interpretations into his own belief of what they should be. Back in May, Candeub was hired by the Trump administration to be deputy assistant secretary, where he helped guide Trump's ridiculolus executive order on 230 a few weeks later. It recently came out that he, and new FCC commissioner Nathan Simington, abused their government jobs to try to get Fox News to attack Section 230, telling a producer of Fox News host Laura Ingraham's show that doing so may help get Trump and down-ballot Republicans elected in the fall.In normal times, federal government officials are supposed to represent everyone, and not just their own political party. They are not supposed to engage in campaigning or electioneering on the public's dime, and they certainly aren't supposed to be working with the press to help elect their own party. Yet, that's exactly what Candeub and Simington did. In response, Simington got his FCC commissionership (despite basically no relevant telecom law experience) and Candeub... has now been promoted to a senior level Justice Department job:Adam Candeub, the acting head of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, has been named deputy associate attorney general starting Monday, according to two officials and a third person familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to discuss the plans. The political appointment does not require congressional confirmation. The concern, as noted in Politico, is that he's going to use the remaining month in office to cause problems for the internet:Candeub has played a central role in carrying out Trump's executive order targeting social media companies like Twitter and Facebook over allegations they censor conservative viewpoints. The executive order asked federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, to narrow the scope of a crucial set of liability protections that shield online companies from lawsuits over the user content they host. One of Candeub's advisers at the NTIA, Nathan Simington, was confirmed last week to a five-year term as an FCC commissioner.Trump has taken increasing aim at the legal shield, a 1996 law known as Section 230, in the twilight of presidency, including vowing to veto a must-pass defense spending bill that overwhelmingly sailed through both the House and Senate because it does not repeal the protections. And he's rallied his allies across federal agencies and in Congress against the law, which has been widely credited with enabling the creation of today's thriving online industry.Candeub, who first joined NTIA earlier this year, has a long history of bashing the social media giants over allegations of an anti-conservative bias. In 2018, Candeub represented a white nationalist in a lawsuit against Twitter alleging the social network censored him. The article further notes that in writing the NTIA's petition to the FCC (in response to the executive order that he helped craft), Candeub worked closely with the DOJ, which has itself continued to attack Section 230 (despite the fact that Section 230 has an exemption for any federal criminal laws, and thus does not impact the DOJ at all):Candeub actively consulted with the Justice Department during this summer's efforts to draft the administration's social media petition to the FCC. He also ran draft copy by White House adviser James Sherk, according to emails obtained by POLITICO through a Freedom of Information Act request.I'm feeling heavy breathing, Candeub wrote in one July 13 email pressing DOJ counsel Lauren Willard and DOJ's Chris Grieco for feedback on the petition, citing pressure from Sherk. It's not clear what Candeub can do in the month he has left, but it certainly is alarming that he's been put in this position. He has shown over his few months in office that he has no interest in representing the American people as a public servant, but rather in trying to twist a law that stymied a high profile lawsuit he was involved in, and he's implicated in an email to try to do that twisting to help his political allies. There is no way he should be in any government role, let alone a powerful one at the Justice Department.
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 16-Dec-2020
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|