Skip to main content

Well, It's About Time

Well, It's About Time

How two massive New York news publishers ended up fighting over intellectual property.

On 20 November 2020, two of the largest most influential media organisations on the planet locked horns over their rights to the thing which Gollum so eloquently put as, 'the thing that devours all things, or for those that are not as up to date on their Lord of the Rings trivia, 'Time'. 

As fancy bathrooms are no longer exclusively stacked with copies of the magazine, earlier this year, Time magazine diversified their offering. It unveiled a new short-form online interview series called 'TIME100 Talks' which featured online interviews with journalists, talents and thought leaders. As the videos became popular, Time magazine began to branch out with this brand, establishing Time Talks for dedicated topics like health. Accordingly, they applied to have the trademark 'TIME100 Talks' registered with the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO). As of the date of this writing, the status of this application is still 'pending'.

This success then attracted the ire of the New York Times, whose holding company has a registered trademark for the words' Times Talks'. The company, arguably most famous for its crosswords or angering the President, decided then to commence proceedings against Time magazine for trademark infringement. 

The main arguments that the courts will need to decide is whether TIME100 Talks is an infringement of 'Time Talks' or an extension of the trademark, 'TIME100'. 

It is a surprise that it has taken this long for the companies to meet regarding trademark infringement as the New York Times has been around since 1851 and Time magazine was first published in 1923. Since the commencement of both publications, they have both relied heavily on their marketing of the word 'time'. 

But what will happen if two established companies with consistent branding and registered trademarks go toe-to-toe in the boxing ring of justice? Well, most likely, not too much, as there is too much at stake. Generic usage of a trademark is the killer of all brands and one of the biggest threats to a company's intellectual property. Since 1788, the word Times has been used in relation to newspapers and the reporting of the news. It is one of the default placeholder names for a newspaper or publication with the location of the publication often preceding the word. In fact, Times began being used by newspapers in England before making it to New York, so it may be argued that it was always in common usage. 

Accordingly, if this were ever to make it to trial, both parties are at risk of having their registered trademarks cancelled if the court determines that it has fallen into generic usage. Going the way of the 'flip-phone', originally a Motorola trademark, when a trademark loses its distinguishing nature, it can often lead to an abandonment of the product/brand itself. Although this is admittedly, unlikely given the circumstances surrounding this matter, it is always worth considering. 

With this case, we will see soon whether the court determines that there is enough evidence to proceed to trial and whether each parties' trademarks are at risk. 


Popular posts from this blog

OFF-BRAND - How a high-fashion brand and a local ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property

OFF-BRAND  How a high-fashion brand and an ice cream shop have come to blows over intellectual property In the various industries that are out there, not too many are as different as fashion and ice cream. One is involved in providing happiness, comfort and everything nice in this world and that other provides a sharp reminder that maybe that extra scoop of ice cream was too much. But suffice to say, a rift between the two industries is not something that you would expect to find.  But as hype culture and the obsessive fandom on the internet have grown, the industries have been growing closer and closer together. But sadly, not in the way you think, we are still a few years off wearable ice cream. Instead, there is now a good chance that your local ice creamery sells merchandise. Less impressive, for sure. But this has become a staple for restaurants with even just a modicum of goodwill attached to their name and why not? If customers are willing to pay an extra $50 so that people will

Green Eggs and Hamm

  Green Eggs and Hamm How a crotch shot of John Hamm and Dr Seuss have sparked the most intense debate on fair use dealing in copyright in the last ten years.  In 2013, John Hamm was in full swing, sipping cocktails and filming the wildly successful  Mad Men  however in years to come he may be remembered for something much more different. One uneventful day, John Hamm was photographed going commando and, thus changed how we see intellectual property rights on the internet forever.  Like all paparazzi photos, it was promptly uploaded to the internet and licenced for use. Unbeknownst to the photographer, the image was then used in an article by the Huffington Post, titled "25 Things You Wish You Hadn't Learned In 2013 And Must Forget In 2014." The writer of the piece turned the photo into a humourous GIF with the intention of mocking people who would want to see the picture and satirising the idea that it was news at all.  The photographer later registered the photo's

What to do if a hate group infringes your copyright?

What to do if a hate group infringes your copyright? In this day and age of heightened political discourses and the government ordered social distancing protocols, the need for community has become a necessity for people who would otherwise be isolated. With community, individuals’ voices become one and their calls for change become louder. While this can be an excellent tool for enacting change and promoting a message, what happens when the message being broadcast isn’t something you agree with? To make matters worse, what happens when a mob is chanting your copyrighted works to support their message? This occurred recently in Melbourne when protestors of the Victorian lockdowns crowded in a shopping mall and chanted ‘You’re the Voice’ by John Farnham. Management for Mr Farnham issued a response noting that both Mr Farnham and his management do not condone the use of the song for this purpose. It happens a lot more in the United States where ‘soupe du jour’ of a hate group or current