tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8910592253382400426..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Famous feline Grumpy Cat seeks US trademarksVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56347288167875081472014-09-30T22:45:15.397+01:002014-09-30T22:45:15.397+01:00Ueah, but was it every fully trademarked legally? ...Ueah, but was it every fully trademarked legally? I search but find nothing at the website.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7057403556798994412014-06-03T02:10:47.353+01:002014-06-03T02:10:47.353+01:00While cats exist, creative works exist in a differ...While cats exist, creative works exist in a different context. Human actors also exist; they too play a character or a role in a creative work. The attractive cat actor’s contribution amounts to presenting the narrative – a grumpy narrative. I do not believe the cat creates that grumpy narrative or that work. <br />But to the point, surly a trademark applies to various classes of goods and merchandise – the origin of those products is the issue. If the maker of Grumpy Cat wish to avoid their merchandise being confused with that of other producers of Grumpy Cat merchandise then a trademark seems appropriate. Grumpy Cat holding a trademark would not constrain or burden the makers of the knock off goods if they have sufficient talent. There are words and cats enough, they could reasonably be expected to name and create their own work, invest their time and money developing their own new work.<br />If the Grumpy Cat trademark is not granted then why should the many makers of knock off Grumpy Cat merchandise do any different to what they presently do? They will see that if they produced their own work they too would likely have their work merchandised by the less imaginative – or more prudent. T.C.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35899479153486561712013-06-06T15:59:02.595+01:002013-06-06T15:59:02.595+01:00I can see how he has copyright to HIS photographs ...I can see how he has copyright to HIS photographs of his cat.<br /><br />But to claim copyright for the image of the breed of cat? Photos or drawings? How will the people who have cat shows be able to take photos of the winning Snowshoe cat without infringing?<br /><br />The cat isn't a "work", the entire breed looks like that. Just Google "snowshoe cat".<br /><br />I recently saw a great photo of the Golden Gate Bridge. The photographer took a nice shot of a firework going off over it, and had the luck to capture a lightning strike as well. Obviously he owns to the copyright to his photo. Can he claim a copyright on all photos of the Golden Gate Bridge? Or of the combination of the bridge, fireworks and lightning? I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />How about if a portrait photographer takes a picture of someone posing with their cat, and it is one of this breed?<br /><br />He didn't "create" the cat, nature did. And he didn't even make it famous, the internet users did that, by people playing "caption this photo".<br /><br />In my opinion, he is trying to take credit for things he did not do.<br /><br />For that matter, Garfield was a GRUMPY CAT long before the term ever got applied to a Snowshoe Cat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24993444173362997682013-03-26T16:06:55.807+00:002013-03-26T16:06:55.807+00:00Ha! Well-played, Hans..
Francis, good point about...Ha! Well-played, Hans..<br /><br />Francis, good point about copyright being available to Nyen Cat but not Tardar (aka Grumpy). We could argue that the effort to name and promote Grumpy Cat makes her a creative "work" of sorts and therefore deserving of protection. On the other hand, courts may be uneasy with extending IP over living things (think of the debates over patents and the Harvard onco-mouse, Myriad Genetics, etc)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-83421439630259441572013-03-26T12:36:47.333+00:002013-03-26T12:36:47.333+00:00This should be about purrsonality rights, if any.This should be about purrsonality rights, if any.Hans Sachsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-28505033265677100712013-03-26T08:10:31.389+00:002013-03-26T08:10:31.389+00:00"Grumpy Cat"'s name is "Tardar ..."Grumpy Cat"'s name is "Tardar Source". The nyan cat is a fictionalised cat but is (I gather) based on one called "Marty". Tardar is (it is said) quite a cheery animal but anyone would look grumpy beside the nyan cat's infectious (or annoying depending on your cat tolerance) cheeriness.<br /><br />But one of the side effects of the rather arbitrary lines we draw in IP is that the nyan cat is protected by copyright (because it is a graphical work) but Tardar Source is not (because it is a real cat) even though pictures of it, however taken, may be (the extent to which the Term Directive and _Painer_ restrict which photos is unclear to me). The real cat is not a "work".Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.com