What, being transphobic not paying the bills as much anymore… 😂
This is probably because of how shitty American trademark law is, more than anything. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve heard it over and over that trademark owners are legally required to defend their trademarks from potential violators like this, or they can lose the trademark.
Everybody knows this, but why let the truth get in the way of an exciting news story?
Also not a lawyer, but in the past, I did a lot of research into how intellectual property works in the United States.
I’ve heard it over and over that trademark owners are legally required to defend their trademarks from potential violators like this, or they can lose the trademark.
This isn’t entirely true. As long as the trademark is actually renewed, it doesn’t need to be aggressively defended.
There are a couple of reasons why they might choose to defend it regardless. One of the major ones is to deter other entities from thinking they too could get away with violating it. An actual, legally-relevant reason to defend it would be to prevent the mark from genericization. That’s when a trademark like a brand name colloquially becomes used to refer to an entire class of products, such as with the Escalator™.
For an example of a company whose trademark was at risk of genericization, look no further than Nintendo. They saved it by defending the trademark tooth and nail while using marketing to reinforce that their product is the Nintendo and not a Nintendo. If people had kept referring to video game consoles as “Nintendos” like they used to back in the 80s and 90s, another company may have been able to successfully challenge the trademark and opened the flood gates for products like the “Microsoft® Xbox 720 nintendo”. Nintendo the corporation is still a bunch of overly-litigous assholes, but back then, they actually needed to be.
In Eminem’s case, it’s probably as a deterrent. Unless people have started referring to Caucasian rappers as “eminems” without me noticing, his brand is at absolutely no risk of being genericized.
I’ve seen a couple of Pablo EscoBAR pubs in Asia and Europe. I wonder if his estate can sue.
Suing them over a pun?! Weak.
Money running out, or did you sell your soul to Big Music, who are doing this on your behalf?
If you don’t enforce your trademarks, you lose them. Unless Marshall is giving up on his legal ownership of “Slim Shady” he legally must do something.
Sad
The company’s name was registered in September 2023, according to Australia’s business regulator, having originally launching under the name Slim Shade.
Wonder how that conversation went. “We can’t use Slim Shade, it’s too close to Slim Shady, Eminem will sue. I know, what about Swim Shady? That’s much better.”
US rapper Eminem has taken legal action against an Australian beachwear company called Swim Shady, saying its name is too similar to his trademarked rap pseudonym Slim Shady.
By the same reasoning, couldn’t Mars sue Eminem saying his name is too similar to their trademarked product name M&M’s?
I think that the initials M&M have been sufficiently well used by various entities throughout history that they could not hope to prove that the name originated with them. Given that part of maintaining a trademark is defending it against encroaching use the existence of other corporate M&M companies, M&MDirect for example, would lead to their lawsuit failing.
Swim Shady, on the other hand makes no sense at all as a name if Slim Shady wasn’t already a well known thing.
Swim Shady is a leading manufacturer of high-quality beach shades, bags, towels, and swim shorts. Our products are designed to protect you from the sun’s harmful rays while providing comfort and style. Swim Shady products are perfect for sun-safe travellers seeking adventure.
That makes the name pretty clear and meaningful entirely outside of the existence of a Slim Shady.
The thing here is that it’s unlikely for, let’s say an investment firm, to be confused with candy.
Same for swimwear and a rapper.
Details.
Not a lawyer - trademark laws also cover an entity trying to play off an existing entities’ name, for example say a swimwear company wants people to think their brand is endorsed or owned by, for example, Eminem that would still be a violation. On top of that there is also something called Right of Publicity which allows people to control how their name is used, and this is close enough to likely fall under the doctrine.
