There is a new report that the mother of Trayvon Martin is seeking trademark ownership for the phrases like “I Am Trayvon” and “Justice for Trayvon.” I have long been a critic of scope of claims under our trademark and copyright laws. Despite my sympathy for the family, I fail to see why anyone should have trademark ownership over “Justice for Trayvon.” Moreover, I would think that there would be a preference for unlimited and widespread use of such terms.
I fail to see why such a claim by anyone should not be viewed as categorically rejected as a common phrase. In this case it is a phrase that is part of political speech across the country.
The March 21 USPTO applications were filed by an Orlando, Florida law firm on behalf of “Sabrina.” However, news reports have the spelling of the mother’s name as Sybrina Fulton.
Should such phrases be trademark protected?
Source: Smoking Gun
I suspect the family did it to protect someone else from doing it first — on advice of counsel. The only thing worse than a family member making money off the tragic death of a loved one is to let a stranger to do the same thing. – mespo
Trying to put the best spin on it, perhaps the family doesn’t intend to try to “make money”, but wants to prevent others from using those particular phrases.
AY:
It really is garish but we have to act fast sometimes.
Mespo,
I do see your point….. But this is a little garrish don’t you agree?
I’m with eniobob.
Eniobob, enough said.
As a legal point, it was my understanding (from my business career) that you could not trademark a phrase already in the public domain, or already copyrighted by somebody else. It is also my understanding that as soon as something is written, it has copyright protection: Somebody else already owns the copyright on “Justice for Trayvon,” and “I am Trayvon”, they have written it and whoever proves the earliest use owns it.
Also, in order to trademark something, I believe you have to prove you have used the mark in trade. Printing it on a cap or T-shirt that was sold is sufficient, but I believe that if somebody ELSE has already used it in trade, you cannot claim a trademark and then stop them.
I am not an attorney, but this is how I recall our full time corporate business attorneys explaining these issues to me, about twenty years ago. I do not know if things have changed, but at least back then, I do not think these opportunistic “trademarkings” would have stood up to a court challenge. The phrases are already in use and widely publicized and already in the public domain; short of being able to prove you coined them and popularized them, I do not think they can be claimed and protected.
I hate to say it, but:
What ANON said.
You know we are rather hyper here in our rush to judgement on the day’s delivery of media shit. Me too.
We don’t know her circumstances. I seem to remember somewhere that he followed his pappa over to the pappa’ girlfriend’s house. What can that open up for her econ means.? Maybe she needs to get some money for her other kids, if any, and doesn’t feel others should be exploiting his name.
Who knows. Maybe we need to cool it and instead get hot instead about SCOTUS or some other fascinating subject.
There I am again, kicking so many shins as possible. Don’t you just love that?
I suspect the family did it to protect someone else from doing it first — on advice of counsel. The only thing worse than a family member making money off the tragic death of a loved one is to let a stranger to do the same thing.
“Greed knows no bounds…. Grieving over your son death….. I could think of a few more nouns and other words that would aptly descend on this person…. And lady is not one of them…..”
Not to pick on you AY, but to pick on you (for a moment),
This is one thing I just don’t understand about the commenters here. Seemingly normal, rational human beings that clearly have no idea what is going on in other people’s lives miles and miles away from them, with little understanding of the context of any situation, and yet, always ready, willing, and eager to stand in judgment.
And most of them, doing this, while claiming some badge of enlightened progressivism.
Occam’s razor suggests the most likely explanation is her lawyer is an idiot that told her to do this, not to make money, but to keep other people away from doing this same shit first.’
Remember what happened to OWS as one example. There was a race from all sorts of douchebags to trademark it first. https://www.google.com/search?q=ows+trademark
Evidently Zimmerman was handcuffed and then taken to the SPD in the back of a squad car, and the gun was placed into the evidence locker.
Greed knows no bounds…. Grieving over your son death….. I could think of a few more nouns and other words that would aptly descend on this person…. And lady is not one of them…..
I read about this and assumed it was something her idiot lawyer suggested to her.
Eniobob im with you
Mrs Martin,I am only one of millions of voices out there,but I don’t know who’s advising you on this issue but,get as far away from this as you and Mr Martin can ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are already seeing negative articles in the Orlando Sentinel about Trayvon. It is not unreasonable to try and exert control over who is using your dead son for whatever purpose. Anyone could start a “charity” called Justice For Trayvon and solicit donations. They would be the ones trying to make money. Unless the mother is trying to sell t-shirts, it is really slimy to think she is doing anything but trying to exert some control over a situation that is getting out of control. If not the parents, who should be controlling this stuff? Seems to me, any charity or PAC set up in Trayvon’s name should have their blessing. Don’t you Prof. Turley?
Can the NRA set up a web site, “I Am Trayvon” and put pro-gun arguments on there with the parents having zero say? In Prof. Turley’s world, they would be free to do so.
It is possible the domain names were purchased to prevent squatters from using them to further the agenda of those who support Zimmerman and/or the police. The purchase of a domain name does not monetize it. That takes time and hard work.
People just can’t resist trying to make money off of anything they can; even human tragedy. I doubt she’s actually the impetus for this (rather than lawyers or others trying co-opt her family’s limelight) but she ought to be ashamed for not putting a veto on it.
“Should such phrases be trademark protected?”
I would say protect the kids first.
Next some person with the same name will be registering:
Traynor Still Be Here. And putting it on hoodies.
NBAL. sheesh. hell no. now she just blew it all. who’s nuts? her or the firm?