tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post813844746261017208..comments2024-03-29T09:21:58.696+00:00Comments on The IPKat: No Animals Were Harmed In The Making Of This BlogVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19086853835837145932014-01-07T16:43:25.358+00:002014-01-07T16:43:25.358+00:00NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED is a
registered trade mark ...NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED is a<br />registered trade mark in the USA - looked it up because of a vague memory of an IPKat post a while back that wasn't happy about claim to trade mark rights in slogan under discussion - just can't remember who (back then) was making the claim ....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17547963789032954274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-79130502281783271152014-01-07T13:58:01.995+00:002014-01-07T13:58:01.995+00:00Thabks for the red Cross Info. i shall have to rea...Thabks for the red Cross Info. i shall have to read the credits carefully the next time I see "War Horse". <br /><br />Incidentally, near the end of the film is a scene set in an army field hospital when the Armistice is announced. In the background is what looks like a rack of old UK Patent Office wooden search columns. These were disposed of when the Patent Office moved to Wales circa 1990 (I bought several myself). Some evidently ended up with a theatrical props company as I have seen them in a number of films/TV programmes set in the Edwardian era as office furniture. ex-examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28305523579934544422014-01-07T10:01:14.239+00:002014-01-07T10:01:14.239+00:00Red Cross = owned by International Committee of th...Red Cross = owned by International Committee of the Red Cross. Quite carefully policed as it is misused in dramas quite often. I remember receiving a training session on its use.<br /><br />The fact that there may be no other way of describing is really a defence issue, not a protection issue. Is it that different from the use of a geographical name?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4305204586638843642014-01-06T21:49:50.768+00:002014-01-06T21:49:50.768+00:00The Red Cross symbol is internationally protected ...The Red Cross symbol is internationally protected pursuant <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/trtdocs_wo020.html#P155_22332" rel="nofollow">Art. 6ter of the Paris Convention</a>. I think that the authority is ultimately derived from the <a href="http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf" rel="nofollow">Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949</a>.<br /><br />The Red Cross is mentioned in the <a href="http://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/mashup/html/page/manual/TMEP/Apr2013/TMEP-1200d1e4447.xml" rel="nofollow">US Trademark Examination Guidelines</a>.<br /><br />Johnson&Johnson's owns grandfathered rights to the Red Cross, but I don't think that these would be much of a nuisance to a film production nowadays, if one believes a <a href="http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0005.html" rel="nofollow">case report</a> of WIPO's web site.<br /><br />If a clearance was sought by the film company lawyers (probably with the American Red Cross), that would have been probably more out of safety rather than from necessity.Roufousse T. Fairflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59054483914903346902014-01-06T17:49:16.821+00:002014-01-06T17:49:16.821+00:00The credits to the film "War Horse" ackn...The credits to the film "War Horse" acknowledge that the Red Cross symbol (which appeared on the sides of some British Army Ambulances) was used with permission, but I don't recall from who. I understand that the Red Cross symbol is owned by a Pharmaceutical company in the US, which begs the question as to whether the film maker would have to get permission from the trade mark owners in all the countries where the film was to be distrubuted where the same mark belongs to different owners in different territories?<br /><br />ex-examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22456109394254378032014-01-06T16:30:43.166+00:002014-01-06T16:30:43.166+00:00It looks like the AHA has asserted its rights - ag...It looks like the AHA has asserted its rights - against The King's Speech: <a rel="nofollow">http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110205/00552712978/humane-association-trademarked-no-animals-were-harmed-threatens-kings-speech-with-infringement-claim.shtml</a><br /><br />My view is that potentially anything can function as a trade mark, especially with enough marketing. That said, from a descriptiveness perspective, how else could a filmmaker describe his or her film as animal friendly without using those words?<br /><br />A good question on 1, not being a filmmaker I'm not sure I know either!Darren Mealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17241082616098447019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59428932934947779912014-01-06T15:09:52.965+00:002014-01-06T15:09:52.965+00:00This does leave a number of questions, though..
1...This does leave a number of questions, though..<br /><br />1. who could be said to be the relevant market for goods bearing the mark? Whilst the general public in the UK may not know the AHA or its slogan, those in the film world may and it could probably be argued that they are as much the public as anyone else.<br /><br />2. Could it ever function as a trade mark? I would say yes, with evidence of extensive marketing. I am not in the film world, so cannot be sure what marketing it uses<br /><br />3. Have films/tv programmes been forced to remove the slogan where it has been misused?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com