this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
122 points (98.4% liked)

News

23367 readers
4049 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
122
‘Lord Of The Wings’ Food Truck Trademark In New Zealand Defeated By Tolkien Estate (www.techdirt.com)
submitted 10 months ago by QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] teft@startrek.website 83 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Per comments from Holmes himself, the idea for the name had nothing to do with Tolkien’s works, nor the movie. It was instead to denote royalty and lordship. I have seen nothing in any of the reporting to indicate that this had to do with anything other than the name of the food truck. The truck wasn’t going to be themed after the books or films. There wasn’t going to be any trade dress or vehicle wraps harkening back to those works of fiction. There wasn’t to be a flavor of chicken called “One wing to rule them all.”

So trademark holders being douchebags as usual. The Lord of the Rings isn't associated with chicken wings in anyway so how could consumers be confused?

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I hate dead hands lol

Edit: especially when they don't even really work off of a wish or command from the deceased

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 5 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] iltoroargento@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That argument would be more persuasive if it was "Lord of Wings."

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Agreed.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Confusion isn't the only issue. There's also trademark dilution.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

In law, dilution refers to the use of a trademark or trade name in commerce that is sufficiently similar to a famous mark that by association it confuses or diminishes the public's perception of the famous mark.

In dilution, confusion literally is the issue. The point is: literally fucking nobody would be confused.

Just ask Apple Music how well that went fighting Apple Computers for 40 fucking years or so.

It ended with Apple Music putting all the Beatles music catalogue on iTunes.

Nobody was ever confused about Apple Music and Apple Computers.

Just like nobody would be confused by this, considering it has no relation to LOTR other than a name.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Well, I'm only familiar with US law on the subject. NZ might see things differently.

But in the US, dilution of a famous mark doesn't necessarily mean confusion. For example, you couldn't use Apple's famous white apple logo even for a company that had nothing to do with technology.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This isn't about logos though. This is about the name of the company, which is why I referenced two companies with similar names who had never been confused.

Because yes it's more easy to be confused if it's got a trademarked corporate logo somewhere it's not supposed to be.

It's not as easy to be confused just because the names are similar. Nobody was going to show up to Lord of the Wings thinking that it was a JRR Tolkein property when the only thing that came close to referencing it was the name, and the name alone.

It's not like the Elves offered the Hobbits fucking chicken wings instead of lembas.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Trademarks include words, phrases, and symbols.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And this trademark is a phrase, which is not easily confused with another phrase, when taken in context.

Are you being willfully fucking obtuse? We're not talking about other trademarks we're talking about this situation.

If you want to go discuss the entirety of trademark law, go for it, somewhere else, please. This is a conversation about a specific incident, which specifically doesn't include logos and symbols. It uses a phrase that clearly isn't confusing in respect to LOTR.

The wing truck wasn't going to have an effigy of the Hobbits on Mt Doom on it. Literally only the name even came close to referencing it. It's a joke of a trademark dispute and you know it.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 2 points 10 months ago

As I've been trying to explain, confusion is not the only basis for a trademark claim.

Are you being willfully fucking obtuse?

No. And I have no interest in discussing this with you further if you can't do so respectfully.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 43 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So wait, is "Lord of" anything a violation of the copyright or is it just words that rhyme with "rings"?
Either way it seems pretty ridiculous.

[–] Vaginal_blood_fart@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

Michael flatley is fucked!

[–] arymandias@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago

The funny thing is Lord if the Rings is actually public domain in New Zealand as of January this year.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What about "Lord of the Fries"? If that one doesn't get shutdown then neither should this one.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

That's for lots of the flies, though, less litigious as less commercilisation. I'm fact, keeping it in the public consciousness is likely to the published benefit.

[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Time to rename to "Token Wings" after the Token Ring network topology.

[–] FapFlop@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

They probably want to, but it’s not their turn to ask yet.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Satire isn't protected in New Zealand?

[–] ech@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Don't have much knowledge of NZ laws, but they certainly have a vested interest in keeping the Tolkien estate happy. Whether they have prior laws to support that, or there was pressure from the top in this case, it tracks that the lawsuit ended like this.

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I don't think a food truck counts as satire. Satire is like the "Bored of the Rings" Lampoon book from the '70s, it actually had something to say regarding the material it was satirical of.

I may be underestimating the satirical capacity of a food truck, or maybe the legal definition of satire in NZ, but to me it's just a cheeky name.

[–] Erasmus@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

Ehhh…I could see this if it was book or reading related or if they are using a Wizard or the like eating wings in their logo.

But otherwise this is a far stretch.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

That's a great chicken truck name!

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I want to say this was an obvious outcome. But I guess it is an unrelated industry. However I don't buy that you come up with lord of the wings and think that it's so original and so unrelated and so obviously has to do wth lordship and royalty.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

If they come after Jason Donner Van there’ll be trouble.